The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

[Josquius]

This "the referendum is unconstitutional and illegal" stuff is a true nonsense.
How can this be legally illegal (...yeah, I know)?
Isn't self determination covered under international law?

I've no view on whether Catalunya should be independent or not but we aren't talking some borderline case of a sub division of a sub division of a sub division wanting a referendum here, we are talking an actual separate nation. They deserve a referendum.

[The Brain]

I'm not aware of any requirement to accomodate treason.

[garbon]

Limits to fiscal transfers are completely idiotic. Transfers are a function of demographics.

not limiting transfers is idiotic, else you'll have regions that don't get their finances in order for decades on end. And would be stupid to get them in order as it'll reduce the money they get. Cases in point: Brussels, Wallonia.

A nation has right to decide how the fruits of it's labours are spent. All the fruits.

Isn't that what happens in a federal state? Say like on this chart of how much each US state gets from federal gov't per each $1 it sends to the gov't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

[Eddie Teach]

This "the referendum is unconstitutional and illegal" stuff is a true nonsense.
How can this be legally illegal (...yeah, I know)?
Isn't self determination covered under international law?

I've no view on whether Catalunya should be independent or not but we aren't talking some borderline case of a sub division of a sub division of a sub division wanting a referendum here, we are talking an actual separate nation. They deserve a referendum.

If they were actually separate, what would be the point?

[viper37]

Limits to fiscal transfers are completely idiotic. Transfers are a function of demographics.

not limiting transfers is idiotic, else you'll have regions that don't get their finances in order for decades on end. And would be stupid to get them in order as it'll reduce the money they get. Cases in point: Brussels, Wallonia.

A nation has right to decide how the fruits of it's labours are spent. All the fruits.

Isn't that what happens in a federal state? Say like on this chart of how much each US state gets from federal gov't per each $1 it sends to the gov't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

Like he said, you encourage States to not clean their act.  They have no reason to make any kind of structural reform to adress the imbalance.

But a graphic for one year is not really meaningful.

[viper37]

If they were actually separate, what would be the point?

a nation does not automatically come with borders.  Kurds are a nation, really distinct from their neighbours.  Yet, there is no such thing as a Kurdistan in the UN.  Rohingyas are a nation too, despite having no country of their own.

[garbon]

Like he said, you encourage States to not clean their act.  They have no reason to make any kind of structural reform to adress the imbalance.

Which again is part and parcel of being part of a federal system. There are always more profitable, desirable areas that have to 'prop up' financially other parts of the state.  That can't really be the basis of an independence movement as you see the same dynamic if you move to a municipal level.g

But a graphic for one year is not really meaningful.

If you click through the links, they run that analysis yearly with similar results.

[viper37]

Which again is part and parcel of being part of a federal system. There are always more profitable, desirable areas that have to 'prop up' financially other parts of the state. 

over a short term period, some part of a State or a city could be poorer.  Rapid technological change can do that, or legalising/forbidding something.  Classic example was abolishing slavery in your country, it made the South poorer for a time, especially combined with the destruction done by the Northern troops.  New York could have been poorer for a time after 9/11, and New Jersey would have been poorer for a time after their last hurricane, but it's not something that should be permanent.

If a State decides to lower its effective tax rates and rely on Federal money instead to compensate, it is a problem.
If a State/territory suffers from an hurricane that's another.
If people stop buying car, Michigan is poorer for a while, but in no way should this be a permanent solution.  The State should try to find ways to diversify it's economy.  If car global car sales in the US are declining for a decade and the State still insists on producing cars for 90% of its GDP, with constant federal life support, there is no incentive to move away from car production.

When people keep being dependant on the Federal State, it can create resentment on both sides of the divide.  People and States receving the money expect it, it is their due.  People paying accept for a time but would want the receivers to be grateful.  Kinda like how Trump acts with Porto Rico.

That can't really be the basis of an independence movement as you see the same dynamic if you move to a municipal level.g

I doubt it's ever the basis of anything.  Otherwise, West-Montrealers would want to fence and split themselves from East Montreal... oh wait, bad example. 

First comes the nation.  People feel different.  Different language, different culture, different approach to living, different political tendancies, among many factors.  Then comes the political cry.  Simply stating you are different isn't nearly enough, as some people just don't see it that way.  Genereally speaking, if you tell people others are living off of their back and they would be much better off by splitting from the "parasites", they tend to listen. Maybe not agree, but listen to your case.  Tell them your solution will result in widespread poverty and a decreast in their standard of living and they turn away from you...  People generally accept change when they believe it's for the better.

[garbon]

By the by, the South wasn't poorer for a time. If you look at that chart, much of the South is still getting the better deal / other charts will show a high concentration of poverty in the South.  So pretty much the norm for quite some time.

[viper37]

By the by, the South wasn't poorer for a time. If you look at that chart, much of the South is still getting the better deal / other charts will show a high concentration of poverty in the South.  So pretty much the norm for quite some time.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#dependency-and-state-taxes
High dependancy and Low GDP seems concentrated on the Red States.
I agree the term "poor" is ill chosen, because I had production output (GDP) in mind.

[Iormlund]

Please explain to me how the provinces of the interior can "address" age and population density imbalances in such a way that transfers are not necessary.

[Razgovory]

My mom was talking about this the other day, but she kept saying Caledonia.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

[Eddie Teach]

My mom was talking about this the other day, but she kept saying Caledonia.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

They voted to stay.

[CountDeMoney]

My mom was talking about this the other day, but she kept saying Caledonia.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

Nobody's mentioning Bisque independence. 

[Iormlund]

And the award to the weirdest event of the day goes to ...

Gypsies coming to the aid of police forces and chasing separatists off