NationStates Jolt Archive


Next New Country?

Ceanchor
23-05-2006, 11:03
Now that Montenegro is independent, which region do you think will become the next new country
I V Stalin
23-05-2006, 11:13
I reckon the UN will finally get round to recognising Transnistria.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 11:13
Although Scotland now has a devolved parliament(barely worthy of the name and certanily not worthy of theri vastly expensive building) support for the Scottish Nationalist Party and separation from the rest of the UK has never been much more than about 20-25%. Scotland does very well out of governing her beligerent Southern neighbour.
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 11:26
I voted for Scotland more in hope than expectation. Support for the SNP and other parties favouring independence is gradually increasing as is support for independance in general. A recent poll put support for independence at nearly 60%. The SNP currently lead Labour in the polls (we are told) so have every chance of being the largest party in the Parliament after next years elections. It could be the next step on the road to independence :cool: .

Kurdistani independence would also have to involve Iran and Turkey which would, to my mind, make it unlikely.

Kosovo is the spiritual homeland of the Serbs so they are unlikely to let it go without a fight.

Chechnya is a bombsite but it is possible the Russians will say "f**k this for an game of soldiers" and just cut their losses.

Quebec has had its chance to go it alone. I can't see them returning to the polls anytime soon.

Catalonia has had years of a nationalist government regionally without ever seeming to want to rock the boat. I can't see it happening in the near future.
[NS]Errinundera
23-05-2006, 11:38
With any luck Australia will become independent from the U.S.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 11:41
where can i find information about this poll?
Harlesburg
23-05-2006, 11:50
Catalonia for sure, it was even in the paper the past few months.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 11:50
I voted for Scotland more in hope than expectation. Support for the SNP and other parties favouring independence is gradually increasing as is support for independance in general. A recent poll put support for independence at nearly 60%.

I can't even find mention of this on the SNP's website. Are you sure this isn't wishful thinking?
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 11:54
Do people really believe Kosovo will be granted independence? Kosovo was where the Serbian nation was forged. Untill fairly recently (1940s ?) its population was still mostly Serbian. Apparently Tito deliberately encouraged Albanian immigration into Kosovo while "encouraging" Serbs to leave which has given us the current Albanian majority.

The Serbs just giving a piece of their country away which means so much to them culturally is a step I think they are unlikely to take without some serious coercion. It would be like England handing Kent over to the French or the Americans handing over Florida to the Cubans ... only much, much more so.

I have to admit my knowledge of Kosovan history is gleaned mainly from newspaper articles and the odd documentary on cable so I am prepared to be contradicted by more knowledgable sources.
Cardur
23-05-2006, 11:56
none of the above :sniper:
I V Stalin
23-05-2006, 11:57
none of the above :sniper:
A masterful first post. Delightful use of a gun smiley. You will have a magnificent future on this forum.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 11:58
I agree with your interpretation of the realtionship between Serbia and Kosovo although given the presence of UN peace-keeping forces and the more recent history of the Balkans will Serbia have the final word?
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 12:04
Originally posted by Xandabia
I can't even find mention of this on the SNP's website. Are you sure this isn't wishful thinking?
I think the actual figure being quoted is 56% support for independence. I didn't see the actual poll but it is being quoted in the media at the moment (in Scotland). I will try to find it somewhere.

The SNP state they are ahead in the polls but again I haven't seen these polls. Certainly at the Moray by-election, the pundits in the studio did their little statistical analysis of the recent Westminister, Holyrood and local by-elections and stated that Labour stood to lose at least 12 seats next year while the SNP stood to gain as many which would put them neck and neck. And most of those by-elections were before Labours recent horror stories reached the media. So theoretically they should have lost even more support. A year is a long time in politics though :rolleyes: .
Water Cove
23-05-2006, 12:06
Next indipendent nation: California Republic.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 12:12
I read the Scotsman every day and i don't recall seeing this poll. Certainly I was not polled. I just wondered what the question was and who had commissioned the poll as these factors then give you a good indication of how reliable you judge the headline figure to be.

I am not a nationalist, as you may have gathered, and I belive that Scotland benefits from being part of the Union. I know we can both find plenty of statistical ammunition to back up our views on this topic (which is probably worth a thread all of its own) but I'm sure we can agree that Scotland will NOT be leaving the UK any time soon(soon=next 18 months at least).
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 12:21
http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/050413.html

This is an article reporting on the poll. It would appear the 56% is for those who express a preference. The actual number supporting independence is 46% with 39% against.

You are right about our views. I believe Scotland suffers financially, socially and culturally under the union with England. We could argue that point till the cows come home though :rolleyes: .

Edit: I've just noticed that's for 2005. I'll need to keep looking for the poll being mentioned. I get The Herald where it gets the odd mention in the Politics and Letters page.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 12:25
which would be enjoyable for us but not for everyone else. Hav you read the feature in this week's Economist about Scotland? (v. poor article in my view but some interesting stuff in it).

thanks for the link.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 12:30
Just so everyone knows this poll was taken in April 2005 and they asked 922 people (population of Scotland c.5m)

"do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the UK?"

46% were in favour and 39% against, with 15% undecided.

The article also points out that

When TNS System Three(who carried out the poll) asked about the constitution twice in the course of 1998, respondents were asked to back either "a Scottish Parliament with Scotland remaining part of the UK" or "an independent Scotland".

On both occasions, the independence option scored 34%, while devolution was preferred by around 60%.
Harlesburg
23-05-2006, 12:30
A masterful first post. Delightful use of a gun smiley. You will have a magnificent future on this forum.
LOL.
Tagmatium
23-05-2006, 12:38
I believe Scotland suffers financially, socially and culturally under the union with England.
As an Englishman, I'd be more than happy to see an independent Scotland. I would also argue the reverse of Llanarc's statement, that it is in fact England that suffers financially whilst being in union with Scotland. I don't think culturally it's an issue for both sides of the border, as the Scottish are proud of their culture, and rightly so. Socially, probably, as there is a large migration south of the border, but then that is where a lot of the jobs are.

What does get on my nerves is the fact that Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on things that will only affect the English, such as the wretched tuition fees. Thanks to this, a rather sneaky move by New Labour (read Conservatives), I can happily look forward to at least £10,000 worth of debt after I leave University. Which I'll be still paying off by the time I'm middle aged. New Labour is truly the party of the working man.

Also, I recently watch the Politics Show on BBC where the SNP leader (who's name I don't remember) happily "justify" the massive amount of money that is being sunk into Scotland from English taxes by citing 300 years of English dominance of Scotland. Bit of a continuation of a cycle of hate, eh?

I couldn't see Kurdistan becoming indpendent, as Turkey would be very anti towards any such move, as it would give their own Kurdish minority ideas. The Iraqi government would also be rather unhappy about the portion of territory lost to them in the setting up of Kurdistan.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 13:02
The difference between the situation in Turkey and Iraq is that Turkey has the political and militray clout to prevent separation. Iraq barely has a government.
Little India
23-05-2006, 13:11
I read the Scotsman every day and i don't recall seeing this poll. Certainly I was not polled. I just wondered what the question was and who had commissioned the poll as these factors then give you a good indication of how reliable you judge the headline figure to be.

I am not a nationalist, as you may have gathered, and I belive that Scotland benefits from being part of the Union. I know we can both find plenty of statistical ammunition to back up our views on this topic (which is probably worth a thread all of its own) but I'm sure we can agree that Scotland will be leaving the UK any time soon(soon=next 18 months at least).

Can we be sure of that?

If we were a federal nation, I might believe that some separatist faction may force the independence of Scotland, but we are a unitary state, and as none of the four nations in the Union have much of their own devolved power anyway.

And whilst the SNP may have a majority at Holyrood *shudders to hear the name of Blair's infernal plan to devolve power in the UK* they don't have in the House of Commons. Holyrood cannot make decisions that will affect the rest of the Union, ie Independence; only decisions that affect Scotland, such as the smoking ban etc.

Even if Scotland did decide to break away, would anything ever come of it? Let's talk hypothetically. Scotland has declared independence and secession from the Union. The Union now consists of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Before any nation is recognised as being an officially independent and extant, it has to be approved by the UN Security Council, with none of the Five permanent nations vetoeing the declaration of independence. Then, it must receive two-thirds approval vote from the General Assembly before it is allowed to join the UN, which is effectively recognition of independence.
Any application to the UN for independence would be blocked in the Security Council - the UK is a permanent member, as is the US, which would probably back the Union.

Unfortunately for Scotland, it is unlikely that it shall ever have independence. It is in personal union with England under the Queen, and legal union with Westminster.

What really annoys me about these pro-Scottish independence people is that the majority of them don't actually realise the devestating effect independence would have on their own economy and on the Union's economy. For example, the Scottish GDP is £74 billion (£14,651/capita), whereas the GDP of England is £1.227 billion (£24,503/capita). I don't wish to sound nasty, but if Scotland left the Union, it would be worse of economically than it is, as would the rest of the Union.

And I checked this out: in the 2003 election to the Scottish parliament, the Scottish Nationalist Party returned 27 members - 6 less than in the previous session, and they certainly don't have a 54% majority in Holyrood to whoever said that thay did.
Little India
23-05-2006, 13:16
As an Englishman, I'd be more than happy to see an independent Scotland. I would also argue the reverse of Llanarc's statement, that it is in fact England that suffers financially whilst being in union with Scotland. I don't think culturally it's an issue for both sides of the border, as the Scottish are proud of their culture, and rightly so. Socially, probably, as there is a large migration south of the border, but then that is where a lot of the jobs are.

What does get on my nerves is the fact that Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on things that will only affect the English, such as the wretched tuition fees. Thanks to this, a rather sneaky move by New Labour (read Conservatives), I can happily look forward to at least £10,000 worth of debt after I leave University. Which I'll be still paying off by the time I'm middle aged. New Labour is truly the party of the working man.

Also, I recently watch the Politics Show on BBC where the SNP leader (who's name I don't remember) happily "justify" the massive amount of money that is being sunk into Scotland from English taxes by citing 300 years of English dominance of Scotland. Bit of a continuation of a cycle of hate, eh?

Absolutely!!!
Although I have to disagree about happiness at Scottish independence - see above. I do think it is very unfair that the Scots get their own Parliament and the Welsh their own assembly to pass laws pertaining to their own parts of the Union, where Westminster makes decisions on behalf of the entire union. But where is England's parliament??
Largest economically, demographically and geographically, and yet we have no separate representation outside of Westminster beside city and borough councils. How is that fair? The two (Northern Ireland's assembly is suspended) smaller nations - in every sense - have individual representation and England doesn't. I wonder which crackpot thought it up - that complete tosser Blair perhaps?
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 13:28
:mad: oh my God I've just re-read my post and it should say that I'm sure Scotland will NOT be leaving the UK. How stupid am I
Peisandros
23-05-2006, 13:29
A masterful first post. Delightful use of a gun smiley. You will have a magnificent future on this forum.
Hear hear!

As for the question.. I'm not too sure. Scotland would be cool.
Greyenivol Colony
23-05-2006, 13:53
I voted Kosovo. Because I believe that amongst the current nations listed, Serbia would be the least able to resist any move for independence, and Kosovar independence is the most supported by the international community.

If I was going on which nation I think deserves independence the most, I would have voted for Kurdistan, for two reasons; 1) they have been promised independence for nearly 100 years, and 2) tactically, the existance of a secular democratic pro-Western (or rather anti-Arab) Kurdistan would drastically adjust the balance of power in the region to our favour, Kurdistan would, in effect, become a second Israel.

As for Scotland, I do not support their independence. Britain is a union of nations, if this Union broke up I would be forced to become English. I hate England, I hate everything it stands for, by that I mean that I hate the new English mythology has been created by (mostly neonazi) groups since the end of WWII, the mythology that seeks to recreate an English nationality out of mediaeval nostalgia and downright thuggery. I'm not buying it, long live the British Union, I say.
Kamsaki
23-05-2006, 14:10
Other than Montenegro?

Quebec, out of those ones.

I think Antarctica will host the next brand-new country, though.
New Burmesia
23-05-2006, 14:13
As a BRITON who's half English and Scottish (Born in Scotland) I'd hate to see my country split into two. Would I suddenly have to decide whether I was English or Scottish - yes. Do I want to? No way.

What we need is a pan-UK football team and a federal GB/NI (Republican one!) - not Balkanisation of my country. Long live the Union!

(Jeez, do I really sound like an overt tory nationalist? Yuk!)

Next new country: Palestine, if world leaders have any brain cells between them.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 14:16
The United Kingdom aslo includes Northern Ireland - which is not part of Britain
Kamsaki
23-05-2006, 14:17
The United Kingdom aslo includes Northern Ireland - which is not part of Britain
I'm still British, even if I don't actually originate in Great Britain. It's just naming convention.
New Burmesia
23-05-2006, 14:22
The United Kingdom aslo includes Northern Ireland - which is not part of Britain

It's still a part of the British Isles, and the NI team at a public speaking cometition I went to offered to throw me out the window when I asked what part of Ireland they were from. Hint: they considered themselves British.
Ghostovia
23-05-2006, 14:34
I'm not going to vote but ask one thing:

What's the deal with montenegro!?
The country could of left and become independent ANYTIME.
Montenegro and Serbia had those privelages.Capich.
You people are making a fuss out of nothing.And i hope Kosovo & Metohija dosen't get independece becouse that way terrorism and ethnic cleansing, not to mention Al Queda, are being supported!:headbang:

Do people really believe Kosovo will be granted independence? Kosovo was where the Serbian nation was forged. Untill fairly recently (1940s ?) its population was still mostly Serbian. Apparently Tito deliberately encouraged Albanian immigration into Kosovo while "encouraging" Serbs to leave which has given us the current Albanian majority.

The Serbs just giving a piece of their country away which means so much to them culturally is a step I think they are unlikely to take without some serious coercion. It would be like England handing Kent over to the French or the Americans handing over Florida to the Cubans ... only much, much more so.

I have to admit my knowledge of Kosovan history is gleaned mainly from newspaper articles and the odd documentary on cable so I am prepared to be contradicted by more knowledgable sources.

All this is correct.
Zogia
23-05-2006, 14:44
What I want to know is whare is Hwaiaii or porto Rico
Scoluxire
23-05-2006, 15:05
There's always a little confusion as to the definition of Britain:
Great Britain is defined as England, Scotland and Wales
UK also includes Northern Ireland
British Isles includes Eire and all of the Islands

Pub fact - the UK has the 3rd longest country name in the world and the longest that can be expressed in our recognised character set. Full title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'
New Burmesia
23-05-2006, 15:06
What I want to know is whare is Hwaiaii or porto Rico

Well, they don't come up in Google. *Bah-doom tish*
Dodudodu
23-05-2006, 15:10
I think that awkward part of North-western Africa is going to break off from Africa right around the Prime Meridian and form its own Island nation in the middle of the Atlantic. They'd become a fairly major player in Atlantic Trade quickly, me thinks.
Gargantua City State
23-05-2006, 15:14
I voted Russian, cuz they break up more than Hollywood couples. :p
Couldn't vote for Quebec, though. Although I generally dislike the Conservatives, one thing they've managed to do is help make Quebecers feel more like Canadians, than separatists.
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 15:20
It's still a part of the British Isles, and the NI team at a public speaking cometition I went to offered to throw me out the window when I asked what part of Ireland they were from. Hint: they considered themselves British.

Whish is presumbly why the full title of the UK is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain is a geographical term that describes the island on which Scotland, Wales and England are located.

To consider yourself British you do not have to be physically located on the island of Britain.

Do not be intimidated by threats of Irish violence.
Cluichstan
23-05-2006, 15:28
A masterful first post. Delightful use of a gun smiley. You will have a magnificent future on this forum.

Glad to see somebody else smacking people for that. ;)
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 15:40
Originally posted by Little India
What really annoys me about these pro-Scottish independence people is that the majority of them don't actually realise the devestating effect independence would have on their own economy and on the Union's economy. For example, the Scottish GDP is £74 billion (£14,651/capita), whereas the GDP of England is £1.227 billion (£24,503/capita). I don't wish to sound nasty, but if Scotland left the Union, it would be worse of economically than it is, as would the rest of the Union.
I'm afraid all this is meaningless as no-one in Westminster shows the least inclination to properly disentangle what is spent, raised or otherwise in Scotland from that of the UK as a whole. All Westminster calculations are made on assumptions (often deliberately erroneus).

What we do know from recently published documents from Westminster (under freedom of information) is that the Westminster govt in the 1970s lied through their teeth about Scottish independence. All their research into the effects of independence showed that Scotlands only problem would be what to do with all the wealth it had. The Labour govt (and subsequent Tory ones) consistently misled the public by stating Scotland would be poor and the illusion has persisted. Even St Donald Dewar once stated that Scotland would be a 3rd world country if it were to get independence in a year when he knew Scotland had sent a record number of £billions south over and above what we got back from Westminster. It was a lie designed to mislead the Scottish people and it unfortunately worked.

As has been said before in this thread, we could batter stats back and forth over this subject but it would ultimately prove nothing.

As for the supposed constitutional problems England has just now ... boo hoo! For centuries Scottish law has been made by English MPs often against the wishes of the vast majority of the Scottish people and MPs. Not much soul searching by English MPs there. Now we have a situation where a small number of Scots MPs have a small say over matters that ostensibly only effect England (because often they will have a subsequent effect on Scotland) there is much weeping and wailing. Sorry, no sympathy here.

There is also nothing to stop Scotland declaring independence should the people vote for it in a referendum. Scotland is a partner in a Union with England. As a partner we have every right to dissolve the partnership. Every PM since Thatcher has saqid we have that right (gee thanks :rolleyes: ). If other countries can declare independence without the UN putting the kybosh on it, why not Scotland? And if we are such a drag on the English economy, why would England try to stop it's "ball and chain" leaving? This discounts the fact that the UK would no longer be part of the UN itself anyway as it would no longer exist. Scotland would be a successor state as would the rest of the UK after the union was dissolved.
Bodies Without Organs
23-05-2006, 15:43
Great Britain is defined as England, Scotland and Wales

So is Anglesey part of Great Britain?
New-Lexington
23-05-2006, 15:58
New-Lexington of course
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 16:15
Don't you just love nationalist conspiracy theories.
I V Stalin
23-05-2006, 16:17
So is Anglesey part of Great Britain?
It's part of Wales, so yes.
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 16:23
Originally posted by Xandabia
Don't you just love nationalist conspiracy theories.
Hardly a theory :rolleyes: . If a theory has incontrovertible proof it becomes a fact. As all the documentation pertaining to govt deceit in the 70s over Scots Independence exists in the public domain, it is a conspiracy fact ;) .
Xandabia
23-05-2006, 16:28
. . . so you cheerfully assert. Produce the evidence and I'll believe it's more than a conspiracy theory.
Bodies Without Organs
23-05-2006, 16:28
It's part of Wales, so yes.

Ah, but if as an island it is included as part of Great Britain due to being part of Wales, then are the Shetland islands similarly included due to being part of Scotland?
Tagmatium
23-05-2006, 16:28
I guess you don't like the English much, eh?
Yossarian Lives
23-05-2006, 16:36
What we need is a pan-UK football team

I've been thinking about this alot recently I think that this is the best thing that could happen for the UK. From what I've seen the average Scot doesn't care half so much about the Highland Clearances or Longshanks as he does about the English (and by extension much of British TV) crowing about the 5-1 win against Germany.
Llanarc
23-05-2006, 18:00
Originally posted by Xanabia
. . . so you cheerfully assert. Produce the evidence and I'll believe it's more than a conspiracy theory.

Here are a couple of reports from the time late in 2005 when the information was finally put into the public domain after 30 years!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4238744.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article331945.ece
Edit Unfortunately the full "The Independent" article costs money, but the synopsis on this page makes the point well :) .

Originally posted by Tagmatium
I guess you don't like the English much, eh?
I'm not anti-English. I'm pro-Scottish :) . I've had many a good time with English friends but that does not mean I can't be pro-independence for Scotland. I wont be supporting England in the World Cup but then why should I? Do Manchester City fans get behind Manchester Utd when they're up for a trophy, keen to see honours coming to the city of Manchester? No! Why? Because they'll have to live with the smugness for decades to come. It doesn't in any way mean I dislike English people.
Ariddia
23-05-2006, 18:29
You've forgotten Palestine and Western Sahara.

Other possibilities would be Transnistria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria) or Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia).
The South Islands
23-05-2006, 18:35
The Great Lakes Confederation.
Maineiacs
23-05-2006, 18:46
How about the CSA secedes again, only this time we don't want you back. Alternatively, I'm in favor of Maine seceding and becoming Canada's 11th province. :p


Seriously... Western Sahara, Palestine, or maybe Darfur.
Saint Rynald
23-05-2006, 19:35
What about Bavaria? They've got a separtist movement! (Yay! Bayer-reich freistadt!!!) (If you don't believe me, google "bavarian separtists".)
The Coral Islands
23-05-2006, 19:53
As far as I know, there is a small separatist movement in every Canadian province except for Ontario. I am afraid that if Quebec voted out (Not that it will, or even can) the Western Provinces might leave, and then the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland would crawl back to England. I am not too well versed with what is going on in the Far North, but given their diamonds and oil, my guess is that they would want out, too. All of this instability would, of course, prompt the US to do something rash like invade the whole area.

So yeah, I'm hoping that Quebec stays in Confederation.
Europaland
23-05-2006, 19:53
If the pro-independence parties - Scottish National Party, Scottish Socialist Party and Greens - manage to win a majority in next year's elections we'll have a referendum and as most Scottish people support independence it has a very good chance of being successful. I'd also like to see independence for Catalunya and Québec as soon as possible and of course also Wales, Cornwall, the Basque Country, Galicia, Corsica and Puerto Rico.
The Coral Islands
23-05-2006, 19:58
I'd also like to see independence for Québec as soon as possible.

Why in Heaven's name would you want that? Canada is one of the best countries in the world. Québec has never had it so good.
New Burmesia
23-05-2006, 20:03
Why in Heaven's name would you want that? Canada is one of the best countries in the world. Québec has never had it so good.

Damn straight. Canada would be far less cooler without Québec.
Europaland
23-05-2006, 20:06
Why in Heaven's name would you want that? Canada is one of the best countries in the world. Québec has never had it so good.
I'd like the people of Québec to have their independence as they seem more left-wing and anti-American than other Canadians.
New Burmesia
23-05-2006, 20:19
I'd like the people of Québec to have their independence as they seem more left-wing and anti-American than other Canadians.

So what is Québec supposed to do? Declare independence and declare war on the USA and Alberta? Considering socialism is meant to be international, breaking nations apart because of percieved barriers that don't exist in the name of socialism is fundementally wrong - Let alone the fact secession based on politics alone isn't decent at all.

The Bloc/Parti Québeciose are centre-left, but the governing Parti Liberal de Québec are neoliberals. So there ;)
Swilatia
23-05-2006, 20:44
none of the above :sniper:
whats the gun for?
Swilatia
23-05-2006, 20:46
I think Quebec. They already once had a referendum on whether quebec should become independent, I'm sure it will happen again, and with more yes votes.
Forsakia
23-05-2006, 22:45
technically speaking, hasn't Serbia just become independant, since it's no longer attached to Montenegro.


I think I remember a story about Montenegro judges controlling their joint Eurovision entry, that's power for you
Rhursbourg
23-05-2006, 23:35
Corsica
Darknovae
23-05-2006, 23:51
Haven't voted yet. Could be Scotland (home of teh ancestors!) but with any luck, California will develop and stop dragging down the other 49 states. Maybe New York can join it, and they can have their screwed up country in 2 parts on either coast of the USA. Or hopefully New York will just get better and we'll only lose California.

You should have put California on teh poll....
Llewdor
24-05-2006, 00:11
I think Quebec. They already once had a referendum on whether quebec should become independent, I'm sure it will happen again, and with more yes votes.

The strength of the separatist movement in Québec was greatly exagerated by Canada's governing Liberal Party in order to win votes.

If any part of Canada separates, it will not be Québec.

Alberta, I think, is far more likely, but the recent election of an Alberta-based party to run the country has significantly reduced the chance of that in the short term.
Goderich_N
24-05-2006, 00:24
The strength of the separatist movement in Québec was greatly exagerated by Canada's governing Liberal Party in order to win votes.

If any part of Canada separates, it will not be Québec.

Alberta, I think, is far more likely, but the recent election of an Alberta-based party to run the country has significantly reduced the chance of that in the short term.

Plus, Alberta could survive without support from Canada.
Darknovae
24-05-2006, 00:29
California. California, California, California, California, CALIFORNIA!!!!!

California is anti-America, with the Americans media being, what else, HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA. California hates America (America meaning, the other 49 states). California, California, California, California, California, CALI-FRICKIN-FORNIA!!!!

I don't think the CSA will do anything, however. The Civil War was back in the 1860s, when the South had a different economy than the North... so no, no more Confederate States, unless South Carolina will like to secede again, but if SC secedes again, we'll have 48 states and though I live in the other Carolina, I can't really see why SC would want to go now anyway, for any different reason than another state.

Therefore, CALIFORNIA. Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, SC, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, NC, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinios, Alabama, Maine, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, ND, SD, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii won't miss it at all. Well maybe Hawaii, but they'll get over it. New York will miss it too.

California it is.
Oliverry
24-05-2006, 00:39
Actually, Quebec has a strong nationalist side. If it wasn't for the fact that the Federal government spent the same amount of money before than during the 1995 referendum campaign, we would be independant now. Sure, the provincial government at the time also did some illegal things and even threatened immigrants' rights in Quebec when Parizeau said that ethnical vote killed the country, but the Federal Government under the Liberals was really corrupted.

Another fact is that provinces were created so that each province could be the master of its own culture and such. And the Federal government just doesn't respect the current constitution, as they took powers in WWII from the provincial government that they NEVER gave back. Also, if the square heads(those on the other side of the Ottawa River)(I know I could be taxed of racism, but it's nothing compared to the hypocrisy of the British Canadians through all the country's history) could realise that Canada was founded by 2 equal people, French Canadians and English, well, many in here would be happy with the Federation. As well, each time Quebec tries to propose an amendment to the constitution, oh strangely, Ontario is ALWAYS against it, even if it's good for EVERY province in the Federation.

From what I wrote, you can tell I am a separatist and these are some of the reasons why Quebecers want their own country
Dharmalaya
24-05-2006, 00:42
Brilliant; California, then. I can accept the possibilty. The next question is of catalyzation..?
Terioamo
24-05-2006, 01:30
Scotland is not becoming its own country. The Balkanization of the British Isles is nothing but the preamble to war. Its just the nature of small nations to almost always fight each other, GB is just stronger with Scotland and Scotland is stronger as a part of Great Britain. Besides Scotland does not have the right to become its own nation..
Europaland
24-05-2006, 01:49
So what is Québec supposed to do? Declare independence and declare war on the USA and Alberta? Considering socialism is meant to be international, breaking nations apart because of percieved barriers that don't exist in the name of socialism is fundementally wrong - Let alone the fact secession based on politics alone isn't decent at all.

The Bloc/Parti Québeciose are centre-left, but the governing Parti Liberal de Québec are neoliberals. So there ;)
The right of a people to self-determination is fundamental to socialism and the forced unity of the Canadian, British and Spanish states which attempts to suppress the culture of its peoples will always be artifical. I am of course an internationalist and I would like to see a Scotland and a Québec which fought with oppressed people throughout the world for a better society and a better future. This will not be possible for as long as we're serving the interests of US and British imperialism.

The Parti Québécoise did win the majority of seats in 1998 although they admittedly lost quite a few in 2003. For the federal elections of 2004 and 2006 the Bloc Québécoise won 54 and 51 out of 75 seats in Québec respectively. I believe the current Liberal government in Québec is now relatively unpopular and the PQ again have a good chance of success at the next elections.
LaLaland0
24-05-2006, 01:50
I'd say Kurdistan, but that would F up Iraq too much right now. And so my vote goes to Kosovo.
Oliverry
24-05-2006, 02:41
The Parti Québécoise did win the majority of seats in 1998 although they admittedly lost quite a few in 2003. For the federal elections of 2004 and 2006 the Bloc Québécoise won 54 and 51 out of 75 seats in Québec respectively. I believe the current Liberal government in Québec is now relatively unpopular and the PQ again have a good chance of success at the next elections.

Actually, the Liberals might get reelected... Quebec Solidaire is a new separatist party and got a good performance in a by-election, having 22% of the vote in that election. So what could happen is that the Separatist vote might be divided and it would let the Liberals go through and be the governmental party again
Greater Alemannia
24-05-2006, 02:49
I'd hope Alemannia and Bavaria (from Germany), but the odds of those happening are about a quintillion to one. The northerners would have to really fuck up bad.
Europa Maxima
24-05-2006, 02:56
I'd hope Alemannia and Bavaria (from Germany), but the odds of those happening are about a quintillion to one. The northerners would have to really fuck up bad.
Yep, don't see it happening either. :/
Ceanchor
24-05-2006, 03:18
Scotland is stronger as a part of Great Britain. Besides Scotland does not have the right to become its own nation..

I think the Scots will do as they please and they would be better off as an independent state in the EU. I'm not sure it would bother the English much either.

I was gonna include Massachusetts in the poll for fun.
Since they have a disagreement of substance (Homosexual Rights) with most of the other states I think they would be the most likely of the 50 US states to secede.
Greater Alemannia
24-05-2006, 03:37
Yep, don't see it happening either. :/

It almost happened after WWI. Had a large and influencial state like Bavaria ceded, it might have created a domino effect. >_>
Europa Maxima
24-05-2006, 03:38
It almost happened after WWI. Had a large and influencial state like Bavaria ceded, it might have created a domino effect. >_>
Especially after Prussia's military defeat, yeah. Maybe. Too late now though.
Greater Somalia
24-05-2006, 03:52
Although it will take a long and bloody struggle to convince the Russians (the citizens) that Chechens yearn for their freedom, they will eventually get what they want. It's funny, how the media never focus on the sheer brutality done to the Chechens by Russian squads and yet they label their victims as terrorist when they get their revenge. Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) is completely destroyed, if you look at photos of the city, it'll resemble Stalingrad during WW II.
Whithy Windle
24-05-2006, 04:06
Even though I'm only part Scot, I say it's high time Scotland was on it's own. Culturally, economically, dialectically, and racially more separate from England than many of it's former colonies.
Ceanchor
24-05-2006, 04:36
Although it will take a long and bloody struggle to convince the Russians (the citizens) that Chechens yearn for their freedom, they will eventually get what they want. It's funny, how the media never focus on the sheer brutality done to the Chechens by Russian squads and yet they label their victims as terrorist when they get their revenge. Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) is completely destroyed, if you look at photos of the city, it'll resemble Stalingrad during WW II.

I agree. I think there is a lot of unfinished business in the Caucuses.
Xandabia
24-05-2006, 09:11
Scotland is not becoming its own country. The Balkanization of the British Isles is nothing but the preamble to war. Its just the nature of small nations to almost always fight each other, GB is just stronger with Scotland and Scotland is stronger as a part of Great Britain. Besides Scotland does not have the right to become its own nation..

I agree with you on everything but the last point.

Llan thanks for those links - interesting reading.
New Burmesia
24-05-2006, 09:20
Even though I'm only part Scot, I say it's high time Scotland was on it's own. Culturally, economically, dialectically, and racially more separate from England than many of it's former colonies.

But there are many countries with variations of race and culture that seem to get by. Québec voted twice to stay in Canada, and they speak an entire different language to the rest of Canada!

Scotland may be different to England, but they are both British.
Cameroi
24-05-2006, 09:24
hawaii, and the pacific states of north america, consisting of alaska, yukon, b.c., washington, oregon and the northern half of california and the north western corner of nevada.

also i'd like to see the soverignty of an independent tibet restored, and maybe sikkim as well. and an indipendent kashmiri state neither part of india nor pakistan.

the nonpartisan parlimentary monarchy nepal tried to have back in the 60s and 70s.

all i know is what i'd like to see. i have no idea what is likely or not or how much so.

recognition of all indiginous soverignty and dissolution of all governments ever imposed by force of arms.

restoring american samoa to samoan samoa.

an indipentent nation of puorto rico.

unified and indipendent one nation of haiti and dominican republic.

an indipendent international federal district for the united nations, not on the soil of nor beholding to, any other soverign nation. possibly on the top of mount carmel.

a recognition of all land being sacred ground.

=^^=
.../\...
Hakubi
24-05-2006, 09:43
What I want to know is whare is Hwaiaii or porto Rico

Its highly doubtful that either will break away from the US. The latest vote in Puerto Rico only showed 5% support fot independence. The real fight is between statehood or continued status as a dependent territory. It is more likely that PR will be the 51st state in the Union. The benefits of union with the US are far too great to give up. Hawaii will never leave, while there is some political sympathy for the old monarchy, indepence of Hawaii is a pipe dream. Plus we've all heard about what happens when states forcibly try to break from the Union.

Where is the Conch Republic in this poll?!
Flight Boyz
24-05-2006, 10:01
Besides Scotland does not have the right to become its own nation..

Niether did South Carolina in 1860. That certainly stopped them.
Dharmalaya
24-05-2006, 10:14
[QUOTE=Hakubi]Its highly doubtful that either will break away from the US. The latest vote in Puerto Rico only showed 5% support fot independence. The real fight is between statehood or continued status as a dependent territory. It is more likely that PR will be the 51st state in the Union. The benefits of union with the US are far too great to give up. Hawaii will never leave, while there is some political sympathy for the old monarchy, indepence of Hawaii is a pipe dream. Plus we've all heard about what happens when states forcibly try to break from the Union.QUOTE]

I agree that it is highly unlikely that Guam or Puerto Rico, having identical political status, would vote of their own initiative in favor of independence. The reason, as you state, is that they are dependent states, receiving an annual per capita stipend from the US Fed, based upon their census figures; thus Puerto Rico receives more than 10x the amount Guam receives. Their actual political status is termed "unincorporated territory" which, if you read the US Constitution, you'll notice is illegal. Without my pocket copy on hand, ha ha, I can say that it expresses, in words of the same substance, "Congress shall hold no terrritory without a schedule for its incorporation into the union or its release to independence." Thus, the congressional Organic Act of Guam, 1950, which established Guam's representative democracy, is actually unconstitutional and yet unchallenged in federal court. Obviously, the corrupt establishment government of Guam, with whom I am acquainted, is uninterested in independence when a single lawsuit could "vindicate" their "pro-indepedence" faction. I have a friend who teaches constitutional philosophy at the local university there, and he hammers this point to his students (and friends). Moreover, he points out that the organic establishment of a legitimate democracy requires, first, a polity~~a population which self-organizes into a constituency~~and second, a government-product of this collaboration, creating a representative system; with Guam, having been given, first, a government which then was applied to an unrepresented, factionalized tribal society, we see a reversal of the democratic principle of governing genesis; in other words, it is a colony. The US Constitution, as I've said, and I am told also the UN Charter, forbid this situation.
New Burmesia
24-05-2006, 13:13
also i'd like to see the soverignty of an independent tibet restored, and maybe sikkim as well. and an indipendent kashmiri state neither part of india nor pakistan.

Tibet would probably be better off in a federal democratic China than independent, and I read something about the Dalai Llama thinking as such. It needs China's economy, really.

The simple sensible solution for Kashmir would be for the Islamic areas (Pakistan-controlled Kashmir) and the predominantly Islamic Kashmir Valley to be made a State of Pakistan, and the remaining Buddhist and Hindu areas be amde an Indian one. It's a shame people can't live together, but we can blame a old dozy Indian Prince for this one ;)
Amurian
24-05-2006, 13:15
Russia, definetely!
Wallonochia
24-05-2006, 13:39
Besides Scotland does not have the right to become its own nation..

Why not?
New Burmesia
24-05-2006, 18:47
The right of a people to self-determination is fundamental to socialism and the forced unity of the Canadian, British and Spanish states which attempts to suppress the culture of its peoples will always be artifical. I am of course an internationalist and I would like to see a Scotland and a Québec which fought with oppressed people throughout the world for a better society and a better future. This will not be possible for as long as we're serving the interests of US and British imperialism.

I can hardly see how the Canadian government supresses the culture of Québec. However, you missed my point. You said Québec should be independent because they are more Anti-American and apparently left wing. However, one doesn't simplly seceed from any country based on disagreeing with the rest of its polulation over foreign policy.

The Parti Québécoise did win the majority of seats in 1998 although they admittedly lost quite a few in 2003. For the federal elections of 2004 and 2006 the Bloc Québécoise won 54 and 51 out of 75 seats in Québec respectively. I believe the current Liberal government in Québec is now relatively unpopular and the PQ again have a good chance of success at the next elections.

But the PQ would then have to have another referendum on the issue. They didn't win the first two, though, and althouth the federal Liberals are unpopular, the PLQ is unconnected to it.
Imperiux
24-05-2006, 19:02
We spend an appalling amount of money on some mountains in scotland when we need problems sorting down here in the mainland. No offence to scots, I am part scottish, but The Holyrood Parliament is a waste of space. Devolution is a waste of space. The complains made by the SNP and Plaid Cymru about England leading the countries is untrue. They're funded by us, so what if we have a english prime minister? Race shouldn't matter in this day and age.

Now if you're a chav...
Xandabia
24-05-2006, 19:12
We spend an appalling amount of money on some mountains in scotland when we need problems sorting down here in the mainland. No offence to scots, I am part scottish, but The Holyrood Parliament is a waste of space. Devolution is a waste of space. The complains made by the SNP and Plaid Cymru about England leading the countries is untrue. They're funded by us, so what if we have a english prime minister? Race shouldn't matter in this day and age.

Now if you're a chav...

The Prime Minister was educated in Edinburgh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot (not proud of either) and they are part of a long Scottish tradition in British politics. We in Scotland have done more than our fair share in governing the United Kingdom since 1707. I agree that the Holyrood coffee shop is an appalling waste of money and an eye-sore.
Imperiux
24-05-2006, 19:20
The Prime Minister was educated in Edinburgh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot (not proud of either) and they are part of a long Scottish tradition in British politics. We in Scotland have done more than our fair share in governing the United Kingdom since 1707. I agree that the Holyrood coffee shop is an appalling waste of money and an eye-sore.
That is not my argument, It is the fact that most projects in Scotland are disastrous, and I have to put up with constant adverts advertising the rugged, unspoiled landscape, whereas I would class it as Barren, useless landscape.
Xandabia
24-05-2006, 19:25
That is not my argument, It is the fact that most projects in Scotland are disastrous, and I have to put up with constant adverts advertising the rugged, unspoiled landscape, whereas I would class it as Barren, useless landscape.

I'm no fan of devolution or independece but I don't think it is true to say that most projects in Scotland are disasterous. As to the landscape even if mountains are not your thing we have lots more to offer for example the most beautiful city in the UK if not the world in Edinburgh
Imperiux
24-05-2006, 19:32
I'm no fan of devolution or independece but I don't think it is true to say that most projects in Scotland are disasterous. As to the landscape even if mountains are not your thing we have lots more to offer for example the most beautiful city in the UK if not the world in Edinburgh
Edingburgh? If I implied Glasgow has better tastes than that's true. But I'm going to say the most beautiful city is London. Ad In the world, Barcelona/London because they're equally beautiful.
The Lightning Star
24-05-2006, 19:37
Edingburgh? If I implied Glasgow has better tastes than that's true. But I'm going to say the most beautiful city is London. Ad In the world, Barcelona/London because they're equally beautiful.

Been to both, most beautiful city in world is Dubai :)
Saint Rynald
26-05-2006, 15:06
I'd hope Alemannia and Bavaria (from Germany), but the odds of those happening are about a quintillion to one. The northerners would have to really fuck up bad.

Why do you hope that Bavaria and Alemannia will seccede? Anyway, I've never even heard of an Alemannian seccession movement... I mean, the Bavarians aren't even that into real independance... I mean, they're happy to be part of Germany.
Anyway, even if Bavaria and Scotland do seccede from their repective nations, barring any major changes, they'll both still be part of the E.U., which is going to turn into a real government any century now...
Xandabia
26-05-2006, 17:29
Why do you hope that Bavaria and Alemannia will seccede? Anyway, I've never even heard of an Alemannian seccession movement... I mean, the Bavarians aren't even that into real independance... I mean, they're happy to be part of Germany.
Anyway, even if Bavaria and Scotland do seccede from their repective nations, barring any major changes, they'll both still be part of the E.U., which is going to turn into a real government any century now...

Oh myy God - do you think it'll be that soon?
Greater Alemannia
03-06-2006, 16:30
Why do you hope that Bavaria and Alemannia will seccede? Anyway, I've never even heard of an Alemannian seccession movement... I mean, the Bavarians aren't even that into real independance... I mean, they're happy to be part of Germany.

Because Northerners are jerks.
Maineiacs
03-06-2006, 19:34
How about instead of the CSA seceeding a second time, this time we throw you out?