The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

[Razgovory]

You just can't force other people to leave with you.

Really?  'Cause I seem to remember how this discussion started: send in the army to prevent them leaving.

There's this thing call democracy where people vote.  It's almost never unanimous.  When the 13 colonies seperated themselves from the mighty and glorious British Empire, lots of people didn't want to leave.  Yet, you forced them to.  And to make sure no one would pest you with silly ideas like rejoining the British Empire when things turned sour, you a) expelled many of them from the country, and b) made sure to add a provision that the presidency could only be claimed by someone born in the newly independant territory.  Just to make sure, again, no one would have silly ideas to rejoin the Empire.

Yes, really.  And God, the rest of what you wrote is just pig-ignorant.  And I really mean that, I think there maybe pigs that are better informed about this then you are.

[Maladict]

Wherever things stand on this lower extreme though certainly self determination for places as big and culturally distinct as Catalonia can't be denied purely because of the slippery slope argument, providing the is a clear majority in a referendum and not merely 50%+1 once in a blue moon

Agree there should be a clear majority (67%, or even 75%). But the lesson from Brexit is not only having a clear majority to leave/secede, but also having a majority consensus on what they do want the new entity to be. That would also prevent various fringe crazies uniting out of very different motives.

[grumbler]

This Canadian national myth about the poor Loyalists kicked out by the Evol Americans has always amused me.  Approximately 60,000 of the roughly 3 million Americans in the country at the time left; that's two percent.  It's hard to argue that a disagreement by 2 percent disproves the validity of an action.

And the situation of the 13 colonies was not like that of, say, Scotland or Catalonia.  The 13 colonies were suffering under British mercantilistic exploitation, and had no voice in the UK's government.  I'd be wiling to bet that, if the UK government passed a law depriving everyone in Scotland of a vote, there would be a lot more external support for a separation even if the UK didn't agree to it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Part of the issue too is it's becoming more and more false to generalize about these sub-national regions. Most Western countries have significant internal migration, areas that once were extremely distinct, are now less so. Non-native immigrants, domestic migration, and other changes make it more and more questionable to speak of these sub-national units in such distinct terms.

In the United States the Old South really isn't any longer, so much internal migration has lead to people from all over the country moving to Texas and the Southeast that these regions have really lost a lot of their distinct character. Like take Quebec, of its 8m or so residents some 1m are estimated to be foreign born immigrants. How many of them immigrated to "Quebec" versus "Canada?" Should they not be considered at all?

Catalonia is a little smaller the Quebec in terms of population, but is far less distinct. While Quebec has actually seen a net outflow of Canadian citizen migration to other provinces (mostly of allophones and anglophones, which is why the % French primary language population has been ticking up since 1996), and has something like 88% of its population primary French speakers, only about 35% of Catalonia primarily speaks Catalan. For a region of around 7.5m Catalonia is home to over 1m foreign born immigrants.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The thirteen colonies also just aren't a good discussion point for modern secession, they don't even compare well to 19th century secession movements like the Confederacy. They were founded in a hodge podge of manners, administered in a hodge podge of ways for many years, were seen quite truly as "colonies" and not part of the core state in any sense. There's a reason such colonies were explicitly singled out as undesirable and a target for elimination after WWII, with a major movement in the UN to de-colonialize. It's because there isn't really a feasible way to retain a colony while adhering to modern democratic and sovereignty norms.

[Malthus]

This Canadian national myth about the poor Loyalists kicked out by the Evol Americans has always amused me.  Approximately 60,000 of the roughly 3 million Americans in the country at the time left; that's two percent.  It's hard to argue that a disagreement by 2 percent disproves the validity of an action.

And the situation of the 13 colonies was not like that of, say, Scotland or Catalonia.  The 13 colonies were suffering under British mercantilistic exploitation, and had no voice in the UK's government.  I'd be wiling to bet that, if the UK government passed a law depriving everyone in Scotland of a vote, there would be a lot more external support for a separation even if the UK didn't agree to it.

Lots of Loyalists stayed, of course - those physically leaving were a small minority of the total. Staying did not necessarily imply agreement, merely that they did not wish to lose all their property and uproot their lives over the disagreement.

Nor is the notion that Loyalists were forced out widely thought to somehow invalidate the Revolution. I've never seen that as a "Canadian national myth".

The more complex issue is what would happen when the US attempted to expand into Upper Canada, whose population was mostly Americans - and most of them *not* Loyalists, but migrants who came for cheap land. The interesting process is how the US managed to botch that up and effectively plant the seed for Anglo-Canadian nationalism, by invading and messing up the invasion, turning former fellow-nationals into foes (both the Americans and the British thought much of the population would be loyal to the US).

[crazy canuck]

This Canadian national myth about the poor Loyalists kicked out by the Evol Americans has always amused me.  Approximately 60,000 of the roughly 3 million Americans in the country at the time left; that's two percent.  It's hard to argue that a disagreement by 2 percent disproves the validity of an action.

And the situation of the 13 colonies was not like that of, say, Scotland or Catalonia.  The 13 colonies were suffering under British mercantilistic exploitation, and had no voice in the UK's government.  I'd be wiling to bet that, if the UK government passed a law depriving everyone in Scotland of a vote, there would be a lot more external support for a separation even if the UK didn't agree to it.

Please do not equate Viper's recollection of what happened with Canadian national myth making.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Montgomery and Arnold expeditions into Canada are an area of the Revolution I've never been super informed on; at least from a political aspect. The military history is fairly straightforward and well known.

It seems strange that one of the major operations Congress sanctioned for the newly formed Continental Army was an invasion of Canada, it also seems like it was given little real thought or concern, and Congress had done little real analysis of the situation in Canada at all. I think the Congressional authorization for the expeditions literally say something like "if the Canadians are not opposed, we should seek to incorporate them into our efforts against the crown" or something of that nature. It's odd in a modern or even 19th century context to imagine such vague and uncertain orders being issued to military commanders.

My understanding is that at both meetings of colonial representatives in the pre-Declaration of Independence Continental Congress, the French-Canadians in Quebec were invited, and didn't attend or really respond to either invitation. I'm unclear on why Congress was under the impression they were amenable to joining the cause at all. Keep in mind just how much of a shoestring operation the Continental Army was in 1775-1776 makes it even stranger to commit two expeditionary forces into Canada.

[crazy canuck]

The Montgomery and Arnold expeditions into Canada are an area of the Revolution I've never been super informed on; at least from a political aspect. The military history is fairly straightforward and well known.

It seems strange that one of the major operations Congress sanctioned for the newly formed Continental Army was an invasion of Canada, it also seems like it was given little real thought or concern, and Congress had done little real analysis of the situation in Canada at all. I think the Congressional authorization for the expeditions literally say something like "if the Canadians are not opposed, we should seek to incorporate them into our efforts against the crown" or something of that nature. It's odd in a modern or even 19th century context to imagine such vague and uncertain orders being issued to military commanders.

My understanding is that at both meetings of colonial representatives in the pre-Declaration of Independence Continental Congress, the French-Canadians in Quebec were invited, and didn't attend or really respond to either invitation. I'm unclear on why Congress was under the impression they were amenable to joining the cause at all. Keep in mind just how much of a shoestring operation the Continental Army was in 1775-1776 makes it even stranger to commit two expeditionary forces into Canada.

Well that helps explain how botched the American effort was.  If they had not pissed off all the people that probably would have identified as Americans then Canada would probably never have formed.  The UK would have had their naval bases in Halifax and Bermuda and that would have been about it.

[dps]

My understanding is that at both meetings of colonial representatives in the pre-Declaration of Independence Continental Congress, the French-Canadians in Quebec were invited, and didn't attend or really respond to either invitation. I'm unclear on why Congress was under the impression they were amenable to joining the cause at all. Keep in mind just how much of a shoestring operation the Continental Army was in 1775-1776 makes it even stranger to commit two expeditionary forces into Canada.

I think that politically there was just an assumption that French-speaking Canadians at the time hated the British and would gladly be rid of them (probably true enough, but it doesn't follow that they would then be eager to become part of another English-speaking nation) and that English-speaking Canadians largely had the same grievances against the British government as did residents of the 13 colonies (which probably had some validity but wasn't totally accurate, either).  Militarily, I think there was a desire to do something rather than simply stand on the defensive, plus a thought that taking Quebec and Montreal would deprive the British of good bases to invade the 13 colonies from the north.  But it made no sense to send one force against Quebec and a separate force against Montreal.  If they had just aimed for Quebec and successfully taken and held it (which still wouldn't have been a sure thing), Montreal would have been cut off and would probably have fallen easily in due time.

[Iormlund]

There's definitely a lower limit. The difficult point is deciding where. I doubt it will be something we can scientifically define.
I think it's certain a country like Monaco wouldn't be allowed to come into existence but would a Luxembourg be fine?
Why? What are the criteria?
Wherever things stand on this lower extreme though certainly self determination for places as big and culturally distinct as Catalonia can't be denied purely because of the slippery slope argument, providing the is a clear majority in a referendum and not merely 50%+1 once in a blue moon

Actually Catalonia is a perfect example of how silly the minimum boundary notion is.

There's a place called the Val d'Aran, which is administratively part of Catalonia. Population: ~10k. It has its own distinct language (a variant of Occitan) and history (having been formally autonomous for 500 years under the Crown of Aragón and Kingdom of Spain).
The Aranese are also opposed to being dragged out of Spain by any hypothetical Catalonia republic.

[Josquius]

There's definitely a lower limit. The difficult point is deciding where. I doubt it will be something we can scientifically define.
I think it's certain a country like Monaco wouldn't be allowed to come into existence but would a Luxembourg be fine?
Why? What are the criteria?
Wherever things stand on this lower extreme though certainly self determination for places as big and culturally distinct as Catalonia can't be denied purely because of the slippery slope argument, providing the is a clear majority in a referendum and not merely 50%+1 once in a blue moon

Actually Catalonia is a perfect example of how silly the minimum boundary notion is.

There's a place called the Val d'Aran, which is administratively part of Catalonia. Population: ~10k. It has its own distinct language (a variant of Occitan) and history (having been formally autonomous for 500 years under the Crown of Aragón and Kingdom of Spain).
The Aranese are also opposed to being dragged out of Spain by any hypothetical Catalonia republic.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That this small area can stop a catalan secession?

Googling this area it seems quite an easy one to solve, it's on the border of catalonia and giving border areas a choice which side of the new border they want to be on is sensible.

There will of course be less simple examples in secessions. Isolated but large areas that want to remain part of the source nation and not the new nation. It could be tough to work things out there, even within the EU. But self determination should overall go as far as sensibly possible.

[Valmy]

Googling this area it seems quite an easy one to solve, it's on the border of catalonia and giving border areas a choice which side of the new border they want to be on is sensible.

Has the last century of European/world conflict and war taught you nothing? This is almost an impossible one to solve. What is wrong with you?

But I guess what you are really saying that if everybody is reasonable and rational and sits down and calmly works out all the issues and makes sacrifices then everybody can, through good intellectually honest effort, come to an agreement everybody can live with. But, of course, if the two sides were capable of doing that, then why didn't they just work out all the problems that made secession something that was considered in the first place? Neither side would be making an intellectually honest effort, they would be using the negotiations as a pretext to paint their enemies as evil and to push for as much as they can get...because that is how these things usually go. I mean all the issues related to Brexit would have been solved years ago if what you are saying was something people are usually capable of doing. Ireland would have been solved in 1921.

Once you form parties around nationalism reasonable negotiations can rarely be made, because the ideology is inherently irrational and paranoid.

[Josquius]

I don't know anything of the local situation there. But is there a reason the catalan nationalists may be hostile to this area that wants to remain part of Spain doing so?

I don't think we can compare a peaceful secession in the EU to being quite the same thing as historic European border rehashes.

[Iormlund]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That this small area can stop a catalan secession?

Googling this area it seems quite an easy one to solve, it's on the border of catalonia and giving border areas a choice which side of the new border they want to be on is sensible.

There will of course be less simple examples in secessions. Isolated but large areas that want to remain part of the source nation and not the new nation. It could be tough to work things out there, even within the EU. But self determination should overall go as far as sensibly possible.

You said Monaco was too small to become a country, yet you seem to have no problem with a prospective country a quarter the population.

My argument is that yes, the slope is a tad slippery.