Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Iormlund]

Millions of people losing rights they currently have is not a good enough argument for you?

Say the Aragonese independence movement (there is of course one) gets big enough. I've got a job here, a family, a home, could have a business.
A vote comes and 50% + 1 decide I've got a choice to make: either I'm a foreigner in my country now, with no say whatsoever in how things are run, or I'm a foreigner in the rest of Spain, plus likely lose my EU citizenship. Brilliant.

Deciding that sort of thing by so narrow a majority is just madness.

Likewise for any situation where a tyranny of the majority can develop (sorry Mr Scott, us white folk have decided you've never been a citizen).
I'm really, really glad that changing certain stuff in our constitution basically requires that everyone is onboard.

That's assuming dual citizenship is not an option.

Dual citizenship opens a whole other can of worms. I don't know how it is in the UK but in Spain citizens residing abroad can vote. Doesn't matter that much because it is a relatively minor, heterogeneous population.
Would the English be Ok with several million Scots creating a bloc in Parliament and potentially becoming kingmakers despite not paying taxes or living in the country at all?
I would be really pissed if an independent Catalonia (or Basque country) still decided who governs in Spain.

[Iormlund]

There's also a right to self-determination

Self determination is completely arbitrary. Why should Catalonia get a vote, but not Val d'Aran? Or Barcelona? Or my neighborhood?

It is a concept I personally consider abhorrent. It reeks of nationalism and xenophobia.

I could never support it absent actual oppression (Tibet, Kurdistan, etc) or some other major grievance (and here the Scots have some merit precisely because millions of them were stripped of their EU citizenship).

... and the alternative is we are compelling a majority of  people to be governed by a state or in a constitutional arrangement that they don't consent to.

But the other side is supporting the state forcing your fellow citizens to remain in a country that a majority do not consent to on the basis of a minority?

Nobody forces them to remain in the country. There is no Iron Curtain. And as a Western European it is incredibly easy to emigrate.

If conditions are that bad, surely they can convince at least two thirds of the voting population to follow their cause.


By the way, if you've never heard of it, I'd suggest you look at the concept of hysteresis. It is used in, for example, thermostats, to avoid precisely the problem of having a switch triggering between two states too often.

[Tonitrus]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

[Valmy]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

International borders and usually and generally very bad for every day people. Look what a fucking pain in the ass even the fucking US-Canada border is.

But Europe has a weird relationship with them thanks to the EU so they can have tons of little states around and it doesn't cause that much pain. However, that kind of thing wouldn't be a thing in a dis-united UK. The border would be a hard border that would cause lots of dislocation and problems.

[viper37]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

Vladimir Putin totally agrees with you.  If only we had more leaders like him, we would have eternal peace on our lands.

[Tonitrus]

As much as it would set off the tinfoil hat crowd, a one-world government really is the ideal.

Though, of course, it really matters how said government is formed.  There would almost certainly need to be some levels of subdivision.  And having such, there would always be arguments, complaints and enough issues (legitimate or no) that would push any of them, at any given time, to independence and hard borders.

But that is mostly just because humans suck.

[Valmy]

And I think it's good for the union too. If unionists are not abe to convince people in Scotland. If we don't have a convincing case for why it's better for Scots and what we can do better together, then unionists deserve to lose and the UK doesn't deserve to carry on. If we want the union to survive it should force us to identify why and make it work.

If the union loses the support of the people of Scotland, there's no basis for it carrying on because it's already failed.

Again if they were just changing political parties to try something else out, see it doesn't work as well, and then go back to what was before that would be a perfectly fine way of thinking.

But once they make this call it is not practical to switch back. You don't create new temporary nations. The Unionists have to show how something theoretical is not as good as something actual and they will have no opportunity to be vindicated if things go shitty.

But fortunately the Scottish Nationalists have been in power and shown how underwhelming they are so in that sense perhaps the regular old democratic process works itself out.

[Valmy]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

Vladimir Putin totally agrees with you.  If only we had more leaders like him, we would have eternal peace on our lands.

I think having more democracies is better than having fewer dictatorships so you got me there.

[Josquius]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

It could be argued a independent Scotland is a step towards this.

Dual citizenship opens a whole other can of worms. I don't know how it is in the UK but in Spain citizens residing abroad can vote. Doesn't matter that much because it is a relatively minor, heterogeneous population.
Would the English be Ok with several million Scots creating a bloc in Parliament and potentially becoming kingmakers despite not paying taxes or living in the country at all?
I would be really pissed if an independent Catalonia (or Basque country) still decided who governs in Spain.

Not quite in the UK. Here you can vote up to iirc 12 years living abroad in the last seat in which you've lived.
Most of these Scots, assuming they can keep British citizenship no strings which seems unlikely, have never lived in a seat elsewhere in the UK.

[viper37]

As much as it would set off the tinfoil hat crowd, a one-world government really is the ideal.

Though, of course, it really matters how said government is formed.  There would almost certainly need to be some levels of subdivision.  And having such, there would always be arguments, complaints and enough issues (legitimate or no) that would push any of them, at any given time, to independence and hard borders.

By the time we get to a world government, we will have met alien species.  So our differences will be with them instead of being strictly amongst us.

People like their autonomy from a vast over-arching central authority for various reasons.  It does not have to always be because of massacres and genocides likes Russia/USSR.  There are many other issues at stakes, like a region's economy, resources, culture, etc.

A centralized authority is usually pretty bad at adminstrating it's various regions.  The larger it gets, the lest efficient it becomes.  Plus, the majority always tends to ignore the cultural specificities of the minorities.  Hindus didn't care for the muslims, so Pakistan had to be formed. 

Would it be better to have a united India, were Islam is severely discriminated and there are ethnic/religious violence as there were 1945-1948?  Or is better to acknowledge that there cultural divergences amongst humans and some people prefer to live their lives as they intend to?

[Tonitrus]

A centralized authority is usually pretty bad at adminstrating it's various regions.  The larger it gets, the lest efficient it becomes.  Plus, the majority always tends to ignore the cultural specificities of the minorities.  Hindus didn't care for the muslims, so Pakistan had to be formed. 

Would it be better to have a united India, were Islam is severely discriminated and there are ethnic/religious violence as there were 1945-1948?  Or is better to acknowledge that there cultural divergences amongst humans and some people prefer to live their lives as they intend to?

Neither.  It would be better if they could be united, and Islam was not discriminated against, and there was no violence on such stupid grounds as ethnicity and religion.  And it would be better if those people themselves acknowledged those cultural differences and didn't kill over them.  Very much the same could be said of the issues surrounding Israel/Palestine.

But we're silly, stupid humans who will have a hard time, if ever, of getting over this probably greatest of all of our flaws.

And there would certainly be problems that would exist in the inevitable cases of large disparities in regional prosperity combined with unlimited freedom of movement.  Or the political (lets assume with a system of liberal democracy) of dense population centers with high numbers of votes that would dominate and exploit the the less densely populated, but larger geographic areas that provide the resources to support them.

However it all turns out, it probably be messy.

[Josquius]

As much as it would set off the tinfoil hat crowd, a one-world government really is the ideal.

Though, of course, it really matters how said government is formed.  There would almost certainly need to be some levels of subdivision.  And having such, there would always be arguments, complaints and enough issues (legitimate or no) that would push any of them, at any given time, to independence and hard borders.

By the time we get to a world government, we will have met alien species.  So our differences will be with them instead of being strictly amongst us.

People like their autonomy from a vast over-arching central authority for various reasons.  It does not have to always be because of massacres and genocides likes Russia/USSR.  There are many other issues at stakes, like a region's economy, resources, culture, etc.

A centralized authority is usually pretty bad at adminstrating it's various regions.  The larger it gets, the lest efficient it becomes.  Plus, the majority always tends to ignore the cultural specificities of the minorities.  Hindus didn't care for the muslims, so Pakistan had to be formed. 

Would it be better to have a united India, were Islam is severely discriminated and there are ethnic/religious violence as there were 1945-1948?  Or is better to acknowledge that there cultural divergences amongst humans and some people prefer to live their lives as they intend to?

India has more Muslims than Pakistan. And arguably until recently, some would say broadly even now for many, life is better for Indian Muslims than Pakistanis.
Pakistan shouldn't have happened. But Britain wanted out of India and it didn't want to deal with that shit.

As to centralised authority and world government... A lot of nationalist (in the pro independence rather than fascist sense) groups look to the EU as the best way to meet their ambitions. Unity through division, division through unity.

[Iormlund]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

Vladimir Putin totally agrees with you.  If only we had more leaders like him, we would have eternal peace on our lands.

Vladimir Putin does indeed think supra-national entities are more powerful (and difficult to deal with).
Which is why:

• He is trying to rebuild the old Russian Empire.
• He funds any enterprise that can fragment his enemies. See Brexit, separatist and far-right movements, etc.

[Sheilbh]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

Why? That's not been the historic trend which has been one of national liberation from imperialism, then the collapse of communist union states and some states emerging from colonial borders (South Sudan, Timor-Leste). It doesn't stop international cooperation or coordination - but even if it's something we should be doing, I don't really see much sign of it happening. One perspective of the EU is that it's a state in formation, but I think there's less signs of it happening elsewhere.

Dual citizenship opens a whole other can of worms. I don't know how it is in the UK but in Spain citizens residing abroad can vote. Doesn't matter that much because it is a relatively minor, heterogeneous population.
Would the English be Ok with several million Scots creating a bloc in Parliament and potentially becoming kingmakers despite not paying taxes or living in the country at all?
I would be really pissed if an independent Catalonia (or Basque country) still decided who governs in Spain.

Yeah as Jos says voting in the UK is more based on residence than citizenship. British citizens lose the right to vote after 10-2 years living abroad until they return to the UK. But in UK elections Irish and Commonwealth residents (who have a right to reside in the UK) can vote. Scotland goes even further, so anyone who is lawfully resident in Scotland can vote in Scotland.

I think it's similar in Ireland and I remember the planes full of people going to vote in the gay marriage and abortion referendums, so I think you actually have to vote in country too.

Self determination is completely arbitrary. Why should Catalonia get a vote, but not Val d'Aran? Or Barcelona? Or my neighborhood?

It is a concept I personally consider abhorrent. It reeks of nationalism and xenophobia.

The form self-determination takes will vary and who gets it can be difficult to determine, for sure - ultimately it's who is able to build enough support to justify the claim to be a people or a nation. I think Catalonia can absolutely claim to be a nation in a way that Barcelona can't - though there may be a case for more self-governance, more devolved power etc.

I don't think Scottish nationalism has anything of xenophobia in it, any more than Irish nationalism does (generally). I agree things are different if the nationalism movement is saying they want independence in order to oppress others.

[Tamas]

I would argue that fragmenting into smaller nation states have been the historic trend of failing/stagnating countries/regions. The US have not (yet) fragmented, nor have China or India since its independence. Most western European states have remained intact as well, and the multi-national states created in place of Austria-Hungary have survived as well, with the partial exception of Yugoslavia. So, the vast majority of human population remained in large states, so disintegrating isn't really the trend. I know that the argument would be to call those nation states, but I am not sure if there is a bigger difference in culture and language between people living in opposing ends of the United Kingdom, than, say, India.

Where this all would make sense is within a supra-national/state organisation like the US or the United States - if both Scotland and England were in the EU it would make very little difference to the population of either whether they are still in the UK or not. However, cutting centuries old links because a marginal majority of people think that might be a good idea is a very destructive idea.

Independence, like Brexit, is the price behind Door 1. You can choose the status quo, or whatever you imagine the alternative to be.