Languish.org

A region of your country is threatening secession. The region and its inhabitants are not being oppressed by the government or the ethnic/religious majority of your country. If the situation cannot be peaceably resolved through the political process, do you favor the use of force to keep your country together?

Vive l'Alberta Libre.

Yes, and nuclear weapons are high on the list of options I would prefer.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
A region of your country is threatening succession.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The answer to this question is pretty obvious.  I think that a more interesting question would be about the extent of terror you would impose on former rebels once you vanquish them.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 12:03:49 AM
The answer to this question is pretty obvious. I think that a more interesting question would be about the extent of terror you would impose on former rebels once you vanquish them.

Mongers disagrees. -_-

Depends on the country. Since it's not Yugoslavia, maybe.
I think, without being categorical, deeply split countries over language or religion could do with either power-sharing or larger degrees of self-government if the parties involved don't play nice.

Nah.

Let 'em leave, fail, and then beg to come back.

No. We let Norway go in 1905, surely we're not more bloodthirsty these days.

Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2014, 12:46:52 AM
No. We let Norway go in 1905, surely we're not more bloodthirsty these days.

Free Jemtland?

Quote from: Norgy on April 22, 2014, 12:47:57 AM

Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2014, 12:46:52 AM
No. We let Norway go in 1905, surely we're not more bloodthirsty these days.

Free Jemtland?

Take my Jämtland. Please, take it.

Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2014, 12:46:52 AM
No. We let Norway go in 1905, surely we're not more bloodthirsty these days.

:yes: Oil is overrated.

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

Can't answer the question based on the evidence presented.  This is much too simplistic and Timmay a view of secession.  There are far more factors to consider than whether or not an individual prefers to use force to solve problems.

No, I'd just put out ludicrous propaganda vastly overstating how much worse off they'd be after independence that they'd definitely vote to go on principle.

Vive la Corse libre!

Not unless there was very good reason to believe something was very iffy about the secession; it was all a plot of the Russians or self-serving local business interests or the like.
If it would be a viable country of decent size or uniqueness then its their choice, its the fundamental essence of democracy, its just disgusting to say in a case like Scotland, where independence is a dumb but valid option, that force should be used to enslave them.

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

It's the opposite, if people aren't willing to die for it then it doesn't deserve to be a country.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2014, 07:35:48 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

It's the opposite, if people aren't willing to die for it then it doesn't deserve to be a country.

That's mind-boggingly stupid.

People shouldn't die for countries.

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

Ukraine approach?

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:43:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:44:00 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

Ukraine approach?

If Crimea wanted to break away peacefully after a proper referendum and not a farcical one under Russian guns, then yeah, I'd rather not have the Ukrainian army try to keep it by force. Same with the Eastern part.

There's a bunch of steps one can take to persuade a breakaway region before rolling out the tanks, though. One of the things that surprised me of the whole Scottish affair is how London didn't explore further devolvement which would have easily divided the nationalist front.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:45:57 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:43:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

While I'm not sure on the UK/Scotland scenario, I don't think it would be accurate (or perhaps useful) to speak of force being the only thing keeping two countries together if they have a long standing history of being conjoined...unless I guess if a huge majority of citizens from the seceding country were in favor. Otherwise, I think you could say 51% of voters was the only thing pulling them apart which isn't very helpful.

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:45:57 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:43:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 07:34:21 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 07:32:20 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

While I'm not sure on the UK/Scotland scenario, I don't think it would be accurate (or perhaps useful) to speak of force being the only thing keeping two countries together if they have a long standing history of being conjoined...unless I guess if a huge majority of citizens from the seceding country were in favor. Otherwise, I think you could say 51% of voters was the only thing pulling them apart which isn't very helpful.

History should not dictate the actions or rights of people living in the present, in my opinion.

I do agree though that larger majorities should be required for such a sweeping change to a society. In the Catalan one a 2/3 majority has been put forward even by some separatist circles.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:00:16 AM
History should never dictate the actions or rights of people living in the present.

I wasn't saying length of time alone as the metric but rather that often with history there are long established processes and inter-dependencies between the regions (aka measure of strife and discord that a separation could bring).

Well it sort of depends on why or how they are leaving. 

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

Deserving has nothing to do with it.

Could we have a "maybe so" option?

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

:yes:

I favor using force on Tim. Like a bus hitting him. Or a rickshaw.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

This only works if Scotland is a person and UK is a person.  If they are groups, then there can be vast differences of opinion in both camps, and force wouldn't necessarily be the only thing keeping them together.  Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if downtown has crime, and the city chose to patrol downtown with police to deter crime, then police are the only thing preventing crime."

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 08:35:13 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

This only works if Scotland is a person and UK is a person.  If they are groups, then there can be vast differences of opinion in both camps, and force wouldn't necessarily be the only thing keeping them together.  Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if downtown has crime, and the city chose to patrol downtown with police to deter crime, then police are the only thing preventing crime."

And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

If a minority is trying to force others into secession (see Ukraine), then you're not fighting secession, but tiranny.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:37:42 AM
Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

If he said it, it was purely coincidence.  While the intro monologue has lots of true Patton quotes that is not one of them.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

I disagree.  South Carolina was virtually unanimous (at least amongst the white guys).  But I do not consider their secession legitimate because of the how and why part. 

Secession requires a legitimate reason regarding the abuse of individual rights as described in the Declaration of Independence.  Merely the whim of the electorate is not sufficient and certainly not because they are afraid the Central Government might endanger their ability to enslave or abuse or suppress minorities.

I'm not touching the American Civil War with a 1000 yard stick, but minority supression makes a nation tyrannical - hence you're not fighting secession but tiranny.

Unless Scots display a disposition for using Englishmen as forced labour in whisky breweries, that's not entering the picture here.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

That still doesn't do the trick.  52%, or 60%, or 67%, or whatever still doesn't necessarily represent a "consensus."

And there has to be a consensus among the remaining population that the regions should be allowed to secede.  After all, the territory of the region that is to secede is as much the national territory of those living in the rest of the country as it is the national territory of those who wish to secede.

If secession has the blessings of both the secessionists and the rump-staters, then force should not be used to stop it.  How much support is necessary should be the subject of negotiations.  Referenda should preceded negotiations and then be used to confirm the results of negotiations. 

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 08:58:19 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

That still doesn't do the trick.  52%, or 60%, or 67%, or whatever still doesn't necessarily represent a "consensus."

And there has to be a consensus among the remaining population that the regions should be allowed to secede.  After all, the territory of the region that is to secede is as much the national territory of those living in the rest of the country as it is the national territory of those who wish to secede.

If secession has the blessings of both the secessionists and the rump-staters, then force should not be used to stop it.  How much support is necessary should be the subject of negotiations.  Referenda should preceded negotiations and then be used to confirm the results of negotiations.

All this has happened in the Scottish case, which is the one that prompted Jimmy Olsen to post this thread.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:53:49 AM
I'm not touching the American Civil War with a 1000 yard stick, but minority supression makes a nation tyrannical - hence you're not fighting secession but tiranny.

Unless Scots display a disposition for using Englishmen as forced labour in whisky breweries, that's not entering the picture here.

The Scots situation is totally different since there is a negotiated and agreed upon referendum, Tim is talking about a situation where it is not being negotiated peacefully.  I do not think the Scots have a grievance that justifies the separation but if the UK agrees to it than it is all good.

But secession without negotiation to put your ethnic group in a position of power is not the exception, that is generally how these things tend to go.  So if you are not going to touch the normal situation with a 1000 yard stick than what are we talking about?

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:37:42 AM

Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

Supposedly it is a Patton quote, but he didn't make it at the time of the 3rd Army Speech.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:00:55 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 08:53:49 AM
I'm not touching the American Civil War with a 1000 yard stick, but minority supression makes a nation tyrannical - hence you're not fighting secession but tiranny.

Unless Scots display a disposition for using Englishmen as forced labour in whisky breweries, that's not entering the picture here.

The Scots situation is totally different since there is a negotiated and agreed upon referendum, Tim is talking about a situation where it is not being negotiated peacefully.  I do not think the Scots have a grievance that justifies the separation but if the UK agrees to it than it is all good.

But secession without negotiation to put your ethnic group in a position of power is not the exception, that is generally how these things tend to go.  So if you are not going to touch the normal situation with a 1000 yard stick than what are we talking about?

I'm not touching the ACW with a 1000 yard pole because slavery wasn't abolished at federal level at the time, so it's very fuzzy.

Secession in itself is generally a bad idea, but not one worth shooting people about, unless there's abuse of other rights. So yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

Depends on the situation.  It is generally a terrible idea, and can be repressed when the separatists are gathering around something stupid like slavery or Scottish nationalism.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AM
I'm not touching the ACW with a 1000 yard pole because slavery wasn't abolished in the north at the time either, so it's very fuzzy.

The controversy was the expansion of slavery to the territories.  Everybody understood that if slavery could not be expanded its days were numbered.  The fact there will still slaves in Delaware does not fuzzy that, though believe me lost causers try to.

QuoteSecession in itself is generally a bad idea, but not one worth shooting people about, unless there's abuse of other rights.

The thing is, there usually is which is why there is typically lots of shooting.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:12:47 AM
The thing is, there usually is which is why there is typically lots of shooting.

Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first or intends to become a tyrannical nation then of course it should be answered with force.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

Have you seen many from "non-oppressed" minorities that were not negotiated peacefully but left unilaterally and there was no violence involved?  We might be talking about a very small sample size.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:24:15 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

Have you seen many from "non-oppressed" minorities that were not negotiated peacefully but left unilaterally and there was no violence involved?  We might be talking about a very small sample size.

Well, that's the fault of the question then, isn't it?

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first then of course it should be answered with force.

I disagree strongly with this as a general principle.  Because this is entirely arbitrary what sort of population we are talking about and where.  Does a State (or province or whatever) have this right but a county (or district or whatever) doesn't?  How about a village?  What about 100 militia men and their families on a mountain in Idaho?  And why not?  Why do some groups have absolute rights others do not?

No any group that wants to secede does not have an absolute right no matter what arbitrary territory they can get a majority inside.  But if it is negotiated peacefully with the central government under agreed terms than sure.  But we are specifically talking about a situation where there is no peaceful political solution.  In that situation me being in favor of using force entirely depends on the circumstances.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AMSo yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:29:40 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first then of course it should be answered with force.

I disagree strongly with this as a general principle.  Because this is entirely arbitrary what sort of population we are talking about and where.  Does a State (or province or whatever) have this right but a county (or district or whatever) doesn't?  How about a village?  What about 100 militia men and their families on a mountain in Idaho?  And why not?  Why do some groups have absolute rights others do not?

No any group that wants to secede does not have an absolute right no matter what arbitrary territory they can get a majority inside.  But if it is negotiated peacefully with the central government under agreed terms than sure.  But we are specifically talking about a situation where there is no peaceful political solution.  In that situation me being in favor of using force entirely depends on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:33:01 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AMSo yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:33:47 AM
I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

Yes.  And?

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:35:53 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:33:47 AM
I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

Yes.  And?

That one should use all possible ways to defuse the situation. Again, going back to Larchie's starting statement, if after trying everything one only has the tanks to keep a country together, the tanks should stay in their garages.

(provided, as I said, that the other side hasn't started using violence themselves to achieve secession).

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:33:01 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AMSo yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

No, their choice was to live in Spain, and they had bought homes there, built businesses, developed careers ...

Now it's no longer Spain. They didn't choose that.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
That one should use all possible ways to defuse the situation. Again, going back to Larchie's starting statement, if after trying everything one only has the tanks to keep a country together, the tanks should stay in their garages.

(provided, as I said, that the other side hasn't started using violence themselves to achieve secession).

How exactly can they unilaterally secede without using any violence at all?  They are going to have to take over government buildings and roads and property and so forth.  Even if there was no physical violence involved it is inherently an act of aggression.  And no I disagree with Larchie's blanket statement.  Whether or not the tanks should be used depend on the how and why.

I'd say the following criteria are needed:

1: Does a majority support it. Duh.
2: Would it be able to support itself without cheap tricks and temporary situations- i.e. no villages deciding to go independent in the hopes of being tax havens, to make everyone millionaires from the local oil well, etc...
This one is key to me. We can't have areas thinking only in the short term to make a quick buck and screw over the rest of the country. The country needs a long term future.
3: Does it have a geography or culture that makes it somewhat of a natural nation- not  strictly a must have this one but I would certainly look a lot more kindly on a group of islands or a unique ethnic group wanting their own country, rather than one unnatural square bordered province amongst many.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:41:52 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:33:01 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AMSo yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

No, their choice was to live in Spain, and they had bought homes there, built businesses, developed careers ...

Now it's no longer Spain. They didn't choose that.

You're changing the tale here. It's about voting in a future independent Catalonia or not being happy with the consequences of an hypothetical referendum they would've lost?

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 07:13:11 AM
Vive la Corse libre!

Bon débarras ! Et tant qu'on y est, les Antilles aussi (Guadeloupe et Martinique).

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:43:14 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
That one should use all possible ways to defuse the situation. Again, going back to Larchie's starting statement, if after trying everything one only has the tanks to keep a country together, the tanks should stay in their garages.

(provided, as I said, that the other side hasn't started using violence themselves to achieve secession).

How exactly can they unilaterally secede without using any violence at all?  They are going to have to take over government buildings and roads and property and so forth.  Even if there was no physical violence involved it is inherently an act of aggression.  And no I disagree with Larchie's blanket statement.  Whether or not the tanks should be used depend on the how and why.

And I approve of tanks going out if physical violence is exerted.

Again my belief is that in a non-opressive nation (as stated in the OP) this breaking point will never be reached and a compromise will always be achieved one way or the other. The breaking point wasn't reached in Quebec, and the separatists lost the referendum. It hasn't been reached in Scotland (and my bet is the separatists will lose there too), I would be very surprised if it was reached in Spain either (and most polls point to a separatist defeat there too).

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:41:52 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:33:01 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:05:16 AMSo yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

No, their choice was to live in Spain, and they had bought homes there, built businesses, developed careers ...

Now it's no longer Spain. They didn't choose that.

If they can still keep their homes, operate their businesses, and continue their careers in the hypothetical new Catalonian state, and do not have to give up their Spanish citizenship to do so, how are they being repressed?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 07:13:11 AM
Vive la Corse libre!

Bon débarras ! Et tant qu'on y est, les Antilles aussi (Guadeloupe et Martinique).

Vive la Réunion libre!

As to the poorly thought out question: no, keeping the country together in and of itself is not enough of a reason to use force.

If Quebec wants to secede in a process that seems legitimate, then I'd be against the use of force to keep them in. On the other hand, I can definitely see scenarios in which the use of force would be justified. If say the FLQ is somehow reborn and attempts to affect separation through anti-democratic means, then the use of force is justified in my view.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:44:41 AM
You're changing the tale here.

Not at all. Those people either lose their voting rights where they live or in Spain, whereas they could exercise both before.

Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 09:55:44 AM
If they can still keep their homes, operate their businesses, and continue their careers in the hypothetical new Catalonian state, and do not have to give up their Spanish citizenship to do so, how are they being repressed?

They can't vote anymore to influence policy where their have homes, operate their businesses and develop their careers. They've been disenfranchised, which Celed argues would be grounds for the use of force.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 09:55:44 AM
If they can still keep their homes, operate their businesses, and continue their careers in the hypothetical new Catalonian state, and do not have to give up their Spanish citizenship to do so, how are they being repressed?

They can't vote anymore to influence policy where their have homes, operate their businesses and develop their careers. They've been disenfranchised, which Celed argues would be grounds for the use of force.

If Catalan citizenship and full enfranchisement is offered to everybody residing in Catalonia, I don't know where the problem lies. If somebody choses to keep his Spain citizenship and is offered legal residence instead, again I don't see where the problem lies. It sucks, but I'm not arguing advantages of secession here, I'm arguing about motives to start shooting up people.

The problem with citizenships that I see, is what happens with the Catalans (or for a real world example the Scots) Spanish (/British) citizenship?
All the time I see Scots just assuming they'll be able to keep their British citizenship too. That just doesn't seem right to me. Too much a case of having their cake and eating it.

Languish army of lawyers will probably be more knowlodgeable about this, but AFAIK unless there's a dual citizenship treaty in place between England and Scotland from day 1, Scots would have to choose.

The problem in Spain (and I suppose England too), is that millions of Catalan/Scots would probably qualify for UK citizenship due to relatives, etc... so laws should probably be amended to fully exclude them.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:33:47 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 09:29:40 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first then of course it should be answered with force.

I disagree strongly with this as a general principle.  Because this is entirely arbitrary what sort of population we are talking about and where.  Does a State (or province or whatever) have this right but a county (or district or whatever) doesn't?  How about a village?  What about 100 militia men and their families on a mountain in Idaho?  And why not?  Why do some groups have absolute rights others do not?

No any group that wants to secede does not have an absolute right no matter what arbitrary territory they can get a majority inside.  But if it is negotiated peacefully with the central government under agreed terms than sure.  But we are specifically talking about a situation where there is no peaceful political solution.  In that situation me being in favor of using force entirely depends on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

It's only civil if you win.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 10:13:14 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 09:55:44 AM
If they can still keep their homes, operate their businesses, and continue their careers in the hypothetical new Catalonian state, and do not have to give up their Spanish citizenship to do so, how are they being repressed?

They can't vote anymore to influence policy where their have homes, operate their businesses and develop their careers. They've been disenfranchised, which Celed argues would be grounds for the use of force.

Why should they not have dual citizenship?

IMO should it come to that some kind of dual citizenship system would be an unavoidable consequence.

Ugh dual citizens. Pick a side fence riders.

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
IMO should it come to that some kind of dual citizenship system would be an unavoidable consequence.

Because if they are in this new Independent state they should not be voting in Spanish elections?  I am just trying to imagine the bizarre implications of a third of Canadians have American citizenship or something.

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 07:13:11 AM
Vive la Corse libre!

Bon débarras ! Et tant qu'on y est, les Antilles aussi (Guadeloupe et Martinique).

Vive la Réunion libre!

:secret: Plutôt Mayotte.

Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 10:36:31 AM
Why should they not have dual citizenship?

Why should they? What does Spain win by giving that privilege to those who choose to become Catalonian citizens?

Quote from: Iormlund on April 22, 2014, 09:41:52 AM
No, their choice was to live in Spain, and they had bought homes there, built businesses, developed careers ...

Now it's no longer Spain. They didn't choose that.

I doubt that many of them chose to live in Spain.  Most were probably just born there, without any effort or decision on their part.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:40:57 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 22, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
IMO should it come to that some kind of dual citizenship system would be an unavoidable consequence.

Because if they are in this new Independent state they should not be voting in Spanish elections?  I am just trying to imagine the bizarre implications of a third of Canadians have American citizenship or something.

Because you can't remove the Spanish citizenship of the whole population of Catalonia, in case it declared independence. Spain currently allows dual citizenship with relatively few countries, mostly former colonies and Portugal, so an independent Catalonia should be included in that group of countries whose citizens are allowed to have Spanish citizenship and keep their previous one.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 10:45:20 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 07:13:11 AM
Vive la Corse libre!

Bon débarras ! Et tant qu'on y est, les Antilles aussi (Guadeloupe et Martinique).

Vive la Réunion libre!

:secret: Plutôt Mayotte.

Pas de mouvement en Réunion? Eh ben.

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 10:54:00 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 10:45:20 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 22, 2014, 07:13:11 AM
Vive la Corse libre!

Bon débarras ! Et tant qu'on y est, les Antilles aussi (Guadeloupe et Martinique).

Vive la Réunion libre!

:secret: Plutôt Mayotte.

Pas de mouvement en Réunion? Eh ben.

Pas même de mouvement en métropole pour s'en débarrasser contrairement aux îles précédemment citées.

Quote from: Brazen on April 22, 2014, 07:09:01 AM
No, I'd just put out ludicrous propaganda vastly overstating how much worse off they'd be after independence that they'd definitely vote to go on principle.

Better to just leave the ludicrous propaganda that leaving will be easy with no serious problems and sunshine and lollipops for all unchallenged.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

Other sons of bitches should die for countries.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 08:29:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

:(

We should keep Germany and Austria together with force. :P  :ph34r:

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:48:21 PM
Yes. We should keep Germany and Austria together with force. :P  :ph34r:

Austria was removed from Germany twice using force (1866 and 1945).  The third time might be the charm.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 22, 2014, 10:39:38 AM
Ugh dual citizens. Pick a side fence riders.

:angry:

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:48:21 PM
Yes. We should keep Germany and Austria together with force. :P  :ph34r:

It's not that different that keeping Bavaria and Germany together indeed.

In general I would say no. The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing. I can't think of too many other examples were wars were fought to stop a state from splitting up which had a good outcome.

There is even a precedence: the UK already lost an integral part in 1921 and the war before that wasn't worth it either.

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
In general I would say no. The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing. I can't think of too many other examples were wars were fought to stop a state from splitting up which had a good outcome.

There is even a precedence: the UK already lost an integral part in 1921 and the war before that wasn't worth it either.

That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 12:53:19 PM
It's not that different that keeping Bavaria and Germany together indeed.

Not really. Annexing Austria into Germany would be more like annexing Alsace-Lorraine into Germany. It was once part of what was then considered Germany, but it certainly isn't anymore.

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:59:55 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2014, 12:53:19 PM
It's not that different that keeping Bavaria and Germany together indeed.

Not really. Annexing Austria into Germany would be more like annexing Alsace-Lorraine into Germany. It was once part of what was then considered Germany, but it certainly isn't anymore.

Yeah it is literally not anymore.  So it makes me wonder why one would be sending in armies to keep them from seceding.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 12:57:03 PM
That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.  Despite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. Even Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 01:13:11 PM
As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.

Norway was never really part of Sweden, that was handed to Sweden after the Napoleonic Wars and never integrated.  The Czechs and the Slovak thing happened after a lot of shit had gone down (like, you know, when the Slovaks allied with the Nazis against the Czechs).  That was just the end game and even then it was preceded with months of intense debate over 'hyphenism'.  In any case it was an opportune time when the foundations of the state was being reformed anyway, and further that does not even count because it was mutually negotiated not a straight up secession.

QuoteDespite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful.

There was very nearly a coup and a civil war.  The bottom line was the Soviets were too weak to do anything about it.  And why exactly do we get to ignore what the fallout to that was?

QuoteEven Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

Oh for fucksake stop bringing up counter points that are not.  I am not talking about mutually negotiated separations I was talking about unilateral secessions.  What sense would it make to agree to a separation and then send in the troops?  I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:24:11 PM
I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

As long as they just declare independence and don't actually take action, ignore them.

If they take violent action to secede from the UK, that's treason and they should be punished with the full force of the law.

Ok so same situation but after Scotland declares independence it informs all representatives of the UK to leave and turn over all UK property in Scotland over to the new Kingdom of Scotland or be arrested.  Would you refuse and call their bluff or leave to avoid conflict?

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 01:13:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 12:57:03 PM
That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.  Despite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. Even Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

The Soviet Union wasn't so much a secession as it was a collapse and it wasn't entirely peaceful, I mean there were plenty of little wars like in Armenia, Tajikistan and Georgia not to mention in Russia and the Serbia Montenegro thing occurred after Serbia had lost many costly wars.  I'm not sure if those examples should be used as paragons of peaceful secession.

If there is no previously agreed upon mechanism of secession and appropriate democratic legitimation, I would tell them to fuck off or face the consequences.

I need more information to make a good informed choice.  Particularly I need to know whether my supplies of Oka cheese and maple syrop will be adversely affected by such a succession.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 12:56:18 PM

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

This is true, but we've also civilized the South to some degree, left on their own they would be a world class tyranny.

Bless your heart.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 12:56:18 PM

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

This is true, but we've also civilized the South to some degree, left on their own they would be a world class tyranny.

Yes, but it would be self-contained.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:24:11 PM
Oh for fucksake stop bringing up counter points that are not.

You seem agitated today.

QuoteI am not talking about mutually negotiated separations I was talking about unilateral secessions.

That's kind of weird then... because the question was brought on by the Scottish referendum, where even if the UK doesn't desire to see Scotland leave, the secession will seemingly be dealt with through negotiation; same as Quebec, and it seems Catalonia as well. In a democratic society,

QuoteWhat sense would it make to agree to a separation and then send in the troops?

Exactly. Which is (one of the reasons) why the question Tim posed is so daft.

QuoteI guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

Of course. But that's not what's going to happen, nor is it what's being discussed. As I understand Tim's question - based on the thread that spawned it - it is "refuse separation in any circumstances, up to and including the use of military force - yes/no".

No one is arguing that the use of military force is always justified in all possible scenarios involving separatism.

... the fact that distinction is unclear, is (another) reason why the question Tim posed is so daft.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 01:24:11 PM
Oh for fucksake stop bringing up counter points that are not.  I am not talking about mutually negotiated separations I was talking about unilateral secessions.  What sense would it make to agree to a separation and then send in the troops?  I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

That's a kind of dumb scenario.

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

I asm because that was apparently Parizeau's plan after a yes vote in 1995...

Quote from: Jacob on April 22, 2014, 02:46:14 PM
You seem agitated today.

No more than usual.  I am in a constant state of fatigue these days so that contributes.

QuoteThat's kind of weird then... because the question was brought on by the Scottish referendum, where even if the UK doesn't desire to see Scotland leave, the secession will seemingly be dealt with through negotiation; same as Quebec, and it seems Catalonia as well. In a democratic society

Except the question specifically said that a peaceful solution cannot be reached.  The UK already agreed that Scotland could leave, hence the referendum.  If they did not agree, and thought the referendum was illegitimate, they would certainly not be campaigning to influence the vote.

QuoteExactly. Which is (one of the reasons) why the question Tim posed is so daft.

Yes I think we covered that earlier.  The circumstances that Tim outlined have perhaps never happened before.

QuoteOf course. But that's not what's going to happen, nor is it what's being discussed. As I understand Tim's question - based on the thread that spawned it - it is "refuse separation in any circumstances, up to and including the use of military force - yes/no

No one is arguing that the use of military force is always justified in all possible scenarios involving separatism.

... the fact that distinction is unclear, is (another) reason why the question Tim posed is so daft.

Well yes.

Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
That's a kind of dumb scenario.

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

I asm because that was apparently Parizeau's plan after a yes vote in 1995...

I was thinking a bit about the Quebec vote in 1995 where the plan seems to be if it is 50.000000001% yes than to seize everything and have France recognize Quebec since Canada seemed to understand the terms required a 60% vote or, at the very least, the specifics of situation were never agreed upon by all parties.

Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

That is, indeed, the interesting question.  In a sense, it's the Crimean scenario.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 03:43:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

That is, indeed, the interesting question.  In a sense, it's the Crimean scenario.

Not quite - in Crimea the vote was hardly free or fair and there were no outside observers.

In Quebec there was a horribly confusing question, but the vote itself appeared to be free and fair and there were vigorous campaigns both in favour and opposed.




The 1995 Quebec question: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? :bleeding:

that depends...

if the seceders are doing so to avoid following the democratically enacted laws of the land (e.g. laws banning slavery) then I'm in favor of using force

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 02:42:48 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 12:56:18 PM

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

This is true, but we've also civilized the South to some degree, left on their own they would be a world class tyranny.

Yes, but it would be self-contained.

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.  Besides, they'd probably try to spread their taint like they did in the filibuster era.

Pfft you border staters are not much better.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.targetimg2.com%2Fwcsstore%2FTargetSAS%2F%2Fimg%2Fp%2F13%2F56%2F13565146.jpg&hash=af9cc06e09fbc75756ad41dfe6797e38e9b5ea6c)

It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2014, 04:42:55 PM
It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

They had a plan.  After they achieved Independence they were going to go a'conquerin to get more land for slavery in the Caribbean and Central America.  Another thing they found out during the war is that slavery is actually great for industrial production so don't think slavery was not going to be used for new and exciting applications.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 04:31:08 PM
It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 04:50:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 04:31:08 PM
It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

You need to watch us before we enslave again!

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2014, 04:42:55 PM
It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

It was sustainable, they had sustained it for a long time.  It was quite profitable, and was more profitable then the share cropping arrangements that occurred afterword.  It would be similar to the banana republics of South America.  The only way the elites were going to get rid of slavery was through force, either a rebellion from below, or government intervention from above, or possibly from an outside force invading.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 04:52:32 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 04:50:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 04:31:08 PM
It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

You need to watch us before we enslave again!

Yeah, I mean it's not like absent federal restrictions southern states would start creating more voting restrictions.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 04:50:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 04:31:08 PM
It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

It is our sad and solemn duty to protect the world from the South.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
They had a plan.  After they achieved Independence they were going to go a'conquerin to get more land for slavery in the Caribbean and Central America.  Another thing they found out during the war is that slavery is actually great for industrial production so don't think slavery was not going to be used for new and exciting applications.

:yes:

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

Quote from: Zanza on April 22, 2014, 01:55:02 PM
If there is no previously agreed upon mechanism of secession and appropriate democratic legitimation, I would tell them to fuck off or face the consequences.

The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

QuoteI asm because that was apparently Parizeau's plan after a yes vote in 1995...

Christ :bleeding:

I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

Because of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

So if two people change their minds afterwards suddenly the secession is not legitimate in any way?

Hence why you want a supermajority.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

Yes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.  I mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?  If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 05:20:16 PM
Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

:huh:
For the same reason why changes to a constitution often need one.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:25:58 PM
The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

Yes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.  I mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?  If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

That is is frighting. 

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:29:45 PMBecause of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

Okay. But that doesn't address my issue of legitimacy. If having considered the severe ramifications, 55% of the people who can be arsed to vote on something this important, decide for independence why should that be ignored. Or, indeed, even 50%+1.

And on the pool of voters vs the pool of citizens, that has a bad track record in Scotland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 05:39:13 PM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 05:20:16 PM
Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 05:44:07 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 05:39:13 PM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 05:20:16 PM
Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

Yeah the South would always have an elected democratic state...just one for the white man.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:38:07 PMYes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.

Hold on. The SNP are the legal government of Scotland. They've won a majority - with 45% of the vote in a four party country with a Parliament designed to avoid majority government. They have the right, if they can pass it through Parliament, to have any referendum they want. It wasn't 'allowed to move forward' like some furtive dash for freedom, but was part of their manifesto, publicly debated at length and then passed by Scotland's government.

Obviously in the UK the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and could theoretically ban it, or refuse to recognise it but as I say what democratic legitimacy does that action have? It'd be a disgrace.

QuoteI mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?

Yes. For a start I'd suggest that the SNP are able to move a question this huge is because they've got at least one very able politician. The reason they've been able to move the question is because Scotland's already thinking about it and talking and arguing about it. Sure the SNP have successfully moved the Overton window. But you always have to deal with huge issues and events and questions with the politicians you've got - in my view they're normally the politicians you deserve.

QuoteIf the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

Democracy's a bitch like that. Luckily voters aren't other, stupider people. They're like us (the same stupid people :P) and in general they almost always get the answer right.

QuoteThe worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

Probably. But not for a generation. It'll be like the UK and the EU. Even if we vote to stay in unless something fundamental changes then I'd expect another vote in 20-30 years. That isn't because the politicians are drumming up something dastardly it's because, short of something fundamental shifting it'll still be an important issue for the people of Scotland/UK.

QuoteFor the same reason why changes to a constitution often need one.

I disagree with them too.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2014, 05:44:07 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2014, 05:39:13 PM

Quote from: celedhring on April 22, 2014, 05:20:16 PM
Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

I think the democracy would fall apart fairly quickly.  They would have an economy similar to many south American countries it would follow that their politics would take a similar course as well.  An economy dominated by an elite class who ran the system so they wouldn't have to pay much in taxes, the deep distrust the elites had to non-agrarian wealth, and the worshipful reverence the populace had for it's aristocratic military heroes does not bode well for a democracy.  The states of the Confederacy didn't work together very well during the war, I doubt it would be better in peace.  I imagine when things got bad economically (which would happen pretty quickly), you'd have states with holding their tax revenues from the central government, unpaid soldiers rising up, and states trying to seceded from the Confederacy.  At that point either the country disintegrates or is ruled under emergency governments by reactionary cliques of military officers.  I would bet on the cliques of military heroes.

I agree with the premise of keeping my country together by force, preferably by columns of United States forces like the days of yore, their horses long ago traded in for APCs, roaming the West and disarming fucking goofy ass mouthbreathing dumbass racist redneck inbred Dumbfuckstani cracker fuckstick yahoos running around with guns, interfering with the legal conduct of Federal business.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:42:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2014, 05:29:45 PMBecause of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

Okay. But that doesn't address my issue of legitimacy. If having considered the severe ramifications, 55% of the people who can be arsed to vote on something this important, decide for independence why should that be ignored. Or, indeed, even 50%+1.

Not ignored - further discussions needed on how to work things out.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 22, 2014, 07:05:50 PM
I agree with the premise of keeping my country together by force, preferably by columns of United States forces like the days of yore, their horses long ago traded in for APCs, roaming the West and disarming fucking goofy ass mouthbreathing dumbass racist redneck inbred Dumbfuckstani cracker fuckstick yahoos running around with guns, interfering with the legal conduct of Federal business.

I mean, why force some of the shitty places to stay if they don't want to? BUILD A WALL! :w00t:

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:38:07 PM
The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

I mean it would probably not be so great if people were prevented from being allowed to vote as stances could change further down the line.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 05:38:07 PM
If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.

Scotland must be pretty densely populated. :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2014, 05:53:34 PM
Hold on. The SNP are the legal government of Scotland. They've won a majority - with 45% of the vote in a four party country with a Parliament designed to avoid majority government. They have the right, if they can pass it through Parliament, to have any referendum they want. It wasn't 'allowed to move forward' like some furtive dash for freedom, but was part of their manifesto, publicly debated at length and then passed by Scotland's government.

Obviously in the UK the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and could theoretically ban it, or refuse to recognise it but as I say what democratic legitimacy does that action have? It'd be a disgrace.

The same way the American government ignored the Texas secession referendum which passed with 46,129 in favor to 14,697 against.