What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Josquius]

Shove your semantic games up your arse with your misplaced smugness.
Anywhere had the right to secede. The power to push this through shouldn't even come into it.

English. Learn it. When the example was Scotland voting to be independent it should be pretty bloody obvious who "they" are later in the sentence.

If a nation declares independence and then seizes private property its not the declaration of independence that is to blame there.
You seem to have this weird idea that indpence can only be a sudden violent thing which instantly turns the formerly united country into something divided ala Korea. There's historic precedent for this. But also plenty of examples of it not going this way. It's clear which way is the more desirable.

You hark on about eduction but clearly something went very wrong in yours.

Why is it you feel you must know  everything and want to turn every single discussion into debate club.


(Yes. I fed grumbler. Meh, slow day :p)

[grumbler]

Shove your semantic games up your arse with your misplaced smugness.

I've noticed how your arguments become mere personal attacks when they have (as usual) no intellectual justification and are challenged.

Anywhere had the right to secede. The power to push this through shouldn't even come into it.

This is mere argument by assertion, and easily disproven by any of dozens of failed independence campaigns.

English. Learn it. When the example was Scotland voting to be independent it should be pretty bloody obvious who "they" are later in the sentence.

No, it's not obvious.  You claim that "anywhere" has a right to seceded, and take me and my property with them.  What if the "anywhere" in this case is just the two families on either side of my house?  Can they really vote my house out of the UK just because the six inhabitants of those houses outnumber the five inhabitants of mine?

You need to learn a little but of basic logic and learn to think and express yourself clearly, because your unthinking positions come off sounding childish.

If a nation declares independence and then seizes private property its not the declaration of independence that is to blame there.
You seem to have this weird idea that indpence can only be a sudden violent thing which instantly turns the formerly united country into something divided ala Korea. There's historic precedent for this. But also plenty of examples of it not going this way. It's clear which way is the more desirable.

Strawman argument.  It is clear that I don't think that there HAS to be violence, just that violence is inevitable when there is a unilateral declaration of independence that people in the country are willing to oppose by force. I have mentioned peaceful separations, but those were not the results of UDI.

But, if "anywhere" has the "right" to unilaterally declare itself sovereign, then all of your talk about a "nation" means nothing. 

You hark on about eduction but clearly something went very wrong in yours.

Mere ad hominism.

Why is it you feel you must know  everything and want to turn every single discussion into debate club.

Why are you so offended when people in a discussion forum want to discuss things?

Heat, kitchen, etc.

(Yes. I fed got my ass handed to me by grumbler. Meh, slow day :p)

FTFY 

[Eddie Teach]

There is a difference between discussion and debate.

[grumbler]

There is a difference between discussion and debate.

A debate is just a type of discussion.  It's like the difference between dice and six-sided dice.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have to say I don't know where it comes from but there's definitely a very childish sentiment I see a lot of Europeans hold that "anywhere has a right to secede." It's a concept that has such little actual logical support behind it that it breaks down under even the lightest scrutiny.

The point I always bring up, is the way secession is envisioned, some geographic area votes to secede. The secessionists all advocate that any 50%+1 majority vote is enough. So based on potentially a single vote margin, 49.99% of a country is forced to leave a country in which they have citizenship and in which they were born, for a new country they do not wish to join. If anywhere has a right to secede why do the plots of land inhabited by the 49.99% not have the right to secede back to the original country? That's something never seriously considered.

It was actually, also, a real problem when the CSA secede. Not everywhere in those States agreed with secession. Several areas in the CSA had breakaway governments or areas that declared either "Free States" or continued allegiance to the Union. The most prominent one was the Wheeling area of Virginia; lead by prominent businessmen and politicians of the region, long affiliated more with Pittsburgh than with the rest of Virginia, they made a play for splitting off of the eastern half of the state. There had been long-simmering problems between "Trans-Allegheny" Virginia and the eastern portion of the state for many years, not least of which was issues around representation in the Richmond legislature which significantly advantaged slave holding areas over areas without. The 1851 Constitution of Virginia actually was implemented in part to address some of these concerns, but resentments remained.

The Wheeling-based leadership was able to scrounge up enough "delegates" from around the western portion of the state that they felt confident in declaring a "restored government of Virginia." They then, as the fictional government of all Virginia, declared a vote to break the state in two (legal under the U.S. Constitution with the consent of the state in question, which they were operating as said state), in the ensuing process some questionable things occurred. For one, most of the western portion of the state, from Clarksburg on South, was frankly more confederate inclined than not. However a large portion of the fighting age men in that region were off fighting in the Civil War. No provision was made for absentee voting. Another large portion of the men in that region didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the "restored Government of Virginia" and didn't participate in what they considered to be an illegitimate legal action. So unsurprisingly the referendum won, the reality is maybe 15 or so Northwestern counties that legitimately wished to remain in the Union and legitimately wanted to break away from Virginia, were able to scoop up a large amount of other parts of the state to bring with them--and it wasn't really all that democratic.

There were even additional counties east of the Potomac--Berkely and Jefferson counties, which even the Wheeling leaders never considered part of the referendum and that had no serious anti-CSA political movement at all; however those counties were occupied by the Union for most of the Civil War, and Lincoln essentially decided if they were going to incorporate the western counties as a New State, he wanted that occupied land going with it. It was claimed a vote was held in those counties, but due to the Union occupation and bitter Confederate refusal to even acknowledge its legitimacy, it was essentially a vote that only people loyal to the Union could participate in, which made it a foregone conclusion how the vote would turn out.

Under the theory of "anywhere can secede", portions of West Virginia should have been given the freedom to secede back to Virginia after the Civil War, but this was not done. This is not surprising, because I can assure you modern day secessionists in places like Quebec, Scotland and Catalonia would literally violently foam at the mouth if it was suggested any of the 49.99% on the "losing" side of a secession vote should simply have the option to "leave the new country" if they don't like it, and would not be comfortable with secession movements occurring in "their" land.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's always curious to consider, do Scottish secessionists assert all the areas in very deep red (the border regions with England, Orkney, Shetland) should presumably be forcefully cleaved away from the UK, or should they have a right to remain?

[Berkut]

This is why the only real answer is "Well....it depends...."

[OttoVonBismarck]

This is why the only real answer is "Well....it depends...."

Right, like FWIW I'm more amenable to things like Scottish secession than most. It's a region that had a very long history of being a politically independent Kingdom, even after the merger into the United Kingdom it maintained a number of its own legal structures, it had its own native languages (that have mostly died out but some enthusiasts still maintain them), has its own cultural expression and identity. But I don't think the way to assert that Scotland should have a right to secede is to blanket say "anywhere can secede", that's an idea that actually would make Scotland itself an ungovernable fragmented polity.

[Sheilbh]

Of course they shouldn't - and I don't think it would be particularly controversial (I also expect there'd be more green in a successful referendum). And they're not Scottish secessionists but nationalists which I think is an important distinction. Fundamentally Scotland is a nation - the UK is a union of consent not force or law. That's a core principle of UK law and politics - that we are a nation of nations who are in a union voluntarily (obviously it was a fiction in relation to Ireland based on excluding Catholics from power). But, of course Scotland has the right to secede as Scotland itself is a nation, a constituent whole part but not a union state in itself.

It is also worth noting that this is a bit like a US map of all those red counties. 70% of the Scottish population live in the central belt.

I think it is geographically tied broadly - but I always think of imagined communities on this and it's part of democracy too. So I don't think you can have a sort of "anywhere Scots are is Scotland" attitude to nationalism or secession, but it can apply to Scotland as geographic area and the people in it. The reason we accept that someone in North Yorkshire can make decisions about me or someone from Wyoming can make decisions about you is because we accept we are part of that same democratic community and there are links of some sort (culture, territory, history, language, politics) that gives that legitimacy (and this is the great struggle the EU is going through). That applies to Scotland - I think it probably applies to Flanders or Quebec etc - and so the decision that community makes is seen as legitimate and binding.

It's circular (but I think anything to do with politics tends to be) but I think secession is legitimate when the people seceding (including people who may not want that) accept that it is a legitimate decision - a bit like when democracy or the state is legitimate is when the governed accept it as legitimate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Of course they shouldn't - and I don't think it would be particularly controversial (I also expect there'd be more green in a successful referendum). And they're not Scottish secessionists but nationalists which I think is an important distinction. Fundamentally Scotland is a nation - the UK is a union of consent not force or law. That's a core principle of UK law and politics - that we are a nation of nations who are in a union voluntarily (obviously it was a fiction in relation to Ireland based on excluding Catholics from power). But, of course Scotland has the right to secede as Scotland itself is a nation, a constituent whole part but not a union state in itself.

It is also worth noting that this is a bit like a US map of all those red counties. 70% of the Scottish population live in the central belt.

I think it is geographically tied broadly - but I always think of imagined communities on this and it's part of democracy too. So I don't think you can have a sort of "anywhere Scots are is Scotland" attitude to nationalism or secession, but it can apply to Scotland as geographic area and the people in it. The reason we accept that someone in North Yorkshire can make decisions about me or someone from Wyoming can make decisions about you is because we accept we are part of that same democratic community and there are links of some sort (culture, territory, history, language, politics) that gives that legitimacy (and this is the great struggle the EU is going through). That applies to Scotland - I think it probably applies to Flanders or Quebec etc - and so the decision that community makes is seen as legitimate and binding.

It's circular (but I think anything to do with politics tends to be) but I think secession is legitimate when the people seceding (including people who may not want that) accept that it is a legitimate decision - a bit like when democracy or the state is legitimate is when the governed accept it as legitimate.

But "anywhere has the right to secede" so none of your points have any relevance, as per Tyr's Law.

I'm strongly considering seceding my backyard from the Commonwealth of Virginia as we speak.

[The Brain]

The answer is you ask the Weird Sisters. "Hail to thee, PM of A Plurality of Council Areas of Scotland!"

[Sheilbh]

But "anywhere has the right to secede" so none of your points have any relevance, as per Tyr's Law.

But isn't it linked? Doesn't anywhere have first to be "somewhere"? Which your back garden isn't

[Syt]

This is why the only real answer is "Well....it depends...."

You mean: it independs 

[The Brain]

This is why the only real answer is "Well....it depends...."

You mean: it independs 

It's in my depends.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But "anywhere has the right to secede" so none of your points have any relevance, as per Tyr's Law.

But isn't it linked? Doesn't anywhere have first to be "somewhere"? Which your back garden isn't

Everywhere is somewhere to someone.