Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[Barrister]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. 

No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.

And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?

If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.

I fully support Quebec's right to secede.  I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.

That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.

[Berkut]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. 

No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.

And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?

If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.

I fully support Quebec's right to secede.  I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.

That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.

Where does it stop?

How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?

And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?

Where does it stop?

[Barrister]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. 

No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.

And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?

If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.

I fully support Quebec's right to secede.  I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.

That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.

Where does it stop?

How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?

And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?

Where does it stop?

"Slippery slope" has never been a terribly effective argument, in my opinion.

I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.  Well no, I can think of one - Texas.  But I think that only works if you're dealing with a lightly populated area living next to a fairly densely populated one (on that note, the Russian far east should be concerned).

As for "how small it too small"... I think you know it when you see it.  I recall that some of the votes following WWI covered some pretty small regions, and they were all given the right to self-determination about which country they would join.  So the granularity would be bigger than a household or a neighborhood - probably something along municipality / county sized.

[Berkut]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. 

No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.

And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?

If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.

I fully support Quebec's right to secede.  I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.

That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.

Where does it stop?

How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?

And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?

Where does it stop?

"Slippery slope" has never been a terribly effective argument, in my opinion.

Pointing out the practical flaws in your argument, if effected as stated, is a perfectly effective argument, actually.

I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.

I think you won't find examples where it has worked because it is universally agreed that strict "self-determination" is a non-started when it comes to valid claims for secession. But there are certainly plenty of examples where groups have tried to claim Independence based on some majority (real or imagined) wanted it - and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they do not. Hence the idea that this could be done based *only* on the will of the majority is clearly a non-starter. It has *never* worked that way, because it never COULD work that way. For precisely the reasons I've just stated.

  Well no, I can think of one - Texas.  But I think that only works if you're dealing with a lightly populated area living next to a fairly densely populated one (on that note, the Russian far east should be concerned).

According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51%  of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.

Then redo in 10 years as people move around, of course.

As for "how small it too small"... I think you know it when you see it.  I recall that some of the votes following WWI covered some pretty small regions, and they were all given the right to self-determination about which country they would join.  So the granularity would be bigger than a household or a neighborhood - probably something along municipality / county sized.

Could not possibly work.

[Duque de Bragança]

Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.

And every single nationalist wants the world to be filled with micro-states, only for the fun of it.

Sure seems that way.

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?

I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?

Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.

"But no, that's totally different."

Argument goes both ways : they would have more weight in an independent Québéc. A Québec that has a French tradition of treating the natives better than everywhere else in the Americas (truth be said standards were low) . Not so many "Grande paix de Montréal around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peace_of_Montreal
In more recent times, the Cris natives signed earlier with Québec the Paix des Braves in 2002, than with Ottawa (2007)...

[The Brain]

It stops where the state in question says so. Modern secession is done with the approval of the state. If a village (we can call it Koreshia) decides it's no longer part of the state and the state is fine with it then the village is gone. If the state isn't fine with it then the village stays. It's a wonderfully self-regulating process.

[Valmy]

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

I don't think that should be much of a concern for modern Western societies.  Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, etc. seem to do okay.

Interesting cherry picking of countries there.  I disagree I think this is a concern for modern western countries.  These countries theoretically are based on sovereignty of an ethnicity.  But what happens when immigrants from outside do not fit well with the established ethnicity?  Observe the rise of far right parties.  Obviously not like it is in places like Iraq or whatever but I am baffled you think it is not much of a concern when it has been huge concern.

[Valmy]

I have to disagree - basing countries off of ethnicities has proven to be a fantastic way of organizing nation states.  It gives countries a shared sense of history, culture, belonging and language.

Oh yeah really fantastic.  It has really been a boon to ethnic minorities the world over.  A country does not need ethnic homogeneity to provide these things.  I mean heck you are ethnically Ukrainian, wouldn't it have been great if Canada was just for British ethnicities?  Remember all that shit we did in the US because this country was for the Christian white man?  That was fantastic.

[viper37]

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

So, Mexico and United States should really be one country?  And Spanish should be the only official language?
How do we determine exactly how a country should be formed, nowadays?  We enforce the actual borders now & forever, by force if necessary? 
Europeans countries have been formed over centuries of warfare with each another, delocalization and colonisation for some of them.  How was it better than a democratic referendum?  Should the ex-Yugoslavian republic be re-merged because they were stronger together?

[viper37]

It just drives me crazy how this is being run like our retarded presidential elections with empty rhetoric and bullshit and gotcha moments all driving up to capture a narrow majority.

Do you have any example of recent political campaigns made the way you want to be made, with rational arguments, no inflated hysteria, half-truths or outright lies?

How many people do you know make their democratic choice following a rational process, attributing points on a grid to each political parties position according to what is objectively best for the country, as demonstrated by scientific facts (as in, demonstrated and proven, not a matter of beliefs)?
As a percentage of the American population, how many such people are there currently?  Would you say 90%? 80%? 50%?

Assuming you are right and the YES campaign is solely based on bullshit.  How is it worst than a campaign solely based on bullshit against any form of gun control?

[Zanza]

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

Nation states are a very successful basis for long-lasting and peaceful states.

Multi-ethnic areas e.g. in Eastern Europe have created countless conflicts. As brutal and cruel as it was, the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and Silesia nowadays allows us to have very friendly relations with Poland. That would probably not be the case if there was several million Germans living in Poland.

[Malthus]

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

Nation states are a very successful basis for long-lasting and peaceful states.

Multi-ethnic areas e.g. in Eastern Europe have created countless conflicts. As brutal and cruel as it was, the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and Silesia nowadays allows us to have very friendly relations with Poland. That would probably not be the case if there was several million Germans living in Poland.

You might even call it a "final" solution. 

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

[viper37]

SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?

I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?

Canada is a creation of provinces.  They united together to create a country that would let them build a railroad and stop american expansionism.  There is no provision in the Constitution, wich we have not signed and the Supreme Court has decided should still apply to us preventing secession.

Cities and territorial subdivisions are creations of provinces.  Modalities could be negotiated between a city or a county (technically, MRC) for it to secede.

So far, only the English Montrealers wish to secede.  Blanc Sablon has talked about it, but the indian community next to them told the mayor to fuck off.  And it seems the citizens aren't too inclined on following.

But if, like Scotland, we agree on how the campaign would be conducted, that we allow a certain time frame after independance to shape a constitution, organize the sharing of power, provide sufficient autonomies to counties (technically, MRC) and big cities, if they still wish to secede, it could be arranged, I suppose.

[The Minsky Moment]

We got the Germans out of Poland, but now the Poles are in London.
This is all going to end up with war between Scotland and Poland.

[viper37]

Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.
"But no, that's totally different."

It's funny how things change when the Liberals are not in power.  20 years ago, they all wanted to secede.
Today?  Some white mayor talk about leaving Quebec for Newfoundland.  Indian response: go fuck yourself.