NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been several threads here in recent times about the independence of various regions belonging to national groups that do not have their own states (Scotland, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Basque etc). Many people have posted a simple response to this "If the majority of them want independence, they should have it". This seems to me oversimplistic for a number of reasons.

- If the majority of people who live in Green Close want to be independent from the rest of the UK, should they be allowed to be?

- What if the majority of those who voted want independence but not everyone voted because they did not like either settlement and actually a more complex relationship between the two (or more) regions needs to be implimented. Seperation or union is too bipolar.

- Sometimes the independence of one part of a country would actually create two countries (IE in the case of Scotland, it would also make England into a seperate entity) thus actually both groups should be considered

- Would the independence of the region just create more, not less hostility between the two regions

And so on. So I would like here a discussion. What qualifies a region for independence or otherwise.

If a significant majority wants to be independent, and they understand the consequences of becoming independent, then they should be independent. But if 51% of, say, residents of Vermont decide, "The U.S. is a bunch of meanies! We wanna secede!" then that's a shitty reason to secede. However, if 60% or so of Vermont folks decide, "We can be better off without the Americans draining our tax dollars," then they should be allowed to do so.

What qualifies a region for independence or otherwise.

sustained rather than fleeting desire for it on behalf of the majority of people that care enough one way or another in the region, provided that there isnt' a significant (say 30%+, negotiable) minority in the area that thinks the idea is so horrendous that they would engage in some equivalent to a filibuster to block it.

Usually, 'Independence' is a buzzword used by third-rate politicians who are tired of second-rate politicians getting all the glory.

This isn't meant as a justification for violence, but to mean anything, freedom has to be taken. It can't be given.

This isn't meant as a justification for violence, but to mean anything, freedom has to be taken. It can't be given.

Right, and the idea is that people may take it through the democratic process.

This isn't meant as a justification for violence, but to mean anything, freedom has to be taken. It can't be given.

:confused: Why? A parent for instance can give freedom to their children, can't they?

Right, and the idea is that people may take it through the democratic process.

Point me out a nation that didn't have to fight for it's existence or continued existence.

Point me out a nation that didn't have to fight for it's existence or continued existence.

Slovakia? Afaik Czechoslovakia was a very peaceful split.

Slovakia? Afaik Czechoslovakia was a very peaceful split.

Well, they did form the union peacefully the first time around, and were all on good terms before the fact, so it wasn't as difficult to part ways.

Slovakia? Afaik Czechoslovakia was a very peaceful split.

It's an exception, however, and probably a part of the Cold War (and nit seems that the Soviet Union broke up fairly peaceably, if by "fairly peaceably" you mean "not fairly bloodily but with a lot of resentment.")

There are three kinds of breakups - the friendly (a la Czechoslovakia; it's as rare as a pleasant divorce); the bitter (a la the USSR; it's less rare and involves less bloodshed but a lot of hatred); and the bloody (a la Yugoslavia, the American Revolution, etc.) I'm pretty sure India/Pakistan was between the last two - no all-out warfare but a lot of attack and unpleasantness.

If a state were to break off from the U.S. or a region from the UK, I wouldn't count on a peaceful split.

If a region wants to be independent, I think there needs to be 2 referendums.

1) You want to secede? (this referendum is only in the relevant region)

And then the region starts negotiating w/ the relevant government.

2) Do you approve the deal? (this referendum is both in the region and country)

If both referendums have high turn out rates (70+%) and if the yes side is more than 55 or maybe 60% in each referendum, then that region should be independent.

Point me out a nation that didn't have to fight for it's existence or continued existence.

That's very vague, especially depending on the term "nation". As for countries that were peacefully allowed to be independent here are a few examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_independence_referendum%2C_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_revolution (The Baltic States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_revolution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_timor#Independence

There was violence when East Timor became independent, as well as the Baltic States, but in both cases the nation from whom they were declaring independence agreed to their leaving.

The "family of nations" isn't a gang you have to get jumped in to or a fraternity you have to get hazed in to. That is, of course, assuming we want to even put on the pretense of respecting human rights.

Slovakia? Afaik Czechoslovakia was a very peaceful split.

The Czechs and the Slovaks hate each other's guts. It was only a peaceful split because neither wanted the other to remain.

If the majority of people who live in Green Close want to be independent from the rest of the UK, should they be allowed to be?
Why shouldn't they be?

Surely no-one should be forced to be a citizen of a country? If I want to renounce my British citizenship, AFAIK there's nothing stopping me. The actual problem arises if the residents of Green Close believe they have a legitimate right to the land, houses, etc. in Green Close itself.

Supporters of an independent Scotland who want independence for nationalistic reasons (as opposed to those of us who support 'independence' only in the sense of more local, decentralised government moving away from Westminster) would argue that they have much more right than the hypothetical residents of Green Close, and would probably cite Scotland's history as an independent nation and its distinctive language/dialect, culture, education system, law courts, church, etc., that are separate to British/English culture, etc.

What if the majority of those who voted want independence but not everyone voted because they did not like either settlement and actually a more complex relationship between the two (or more) regions needs to be implimented. Seperation or union is too bipolar.
I agree, and as in all democracies, tyranny of the majority should always be looked out for.

Sometimes the independence of one part of a country would actually create two countries (IE in the case of Scotland, it would also make England into a seperate entity) thus actually both groups should be considered
Your point stil stands, but I think it would be more accurate to say that Scotland is leaving the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as opposed to 'splitting up' with England.

Would the independence of the region just create more, not less hostility between the two regions
Certainly not necessarily, and as for a practical example, the Balkans have certainly quietened down since many national or ethnic groups were granted autonomy. Or look at the ex-Soviet satellite states.




If a region wants to be independent, I think there needs to be 2 referendums.

1) You want to secede? (this referendum is only in the relevant region)

And then the region starts negotiating w/ the relevant government.

2) Do you approve the deal? (this referendum is both in the region and country)

If both referendums have high turn out rates (70+%) and if the yes side is more than 55 or maybe 60% in each referendum, then that region should be independent.
Problem is, the regions that want to secede from whatever country or union that they are currently part of are usually significantly smaller than their ‘parent’ countries.

Take Scotland and the UK for example. The population of Scotland is around 5 million, while the population of the UK is 56 million. Quite some difference; heck, there’s more folks in London than in Scotland! The second referendum in your system would be heavily weighted, to an unfair degree, to the views of the parent country’s citizens.

Now, this doesn’t mean the idea behind the second referendum is completely unfair; I agree that citizens in a parent country should be given some say. After all, to go back to the example of UK for a moment, the Union is meant to be a partnership, not an enslavement. But it would certainly seem as if the region that wanted to secede would always be voted down, assuming most people in the country were against the breaking up of their union.

This might not have much effect in a place like Scotland, but I can imagine a scenario where a truly oppressed ethnic or national group are kept from distancing themselves from their parent country.

The Czechs and the Slovaks hate each other's guts. It was only a peaceful split because neither wanted the other to remain.

Yes that might be (although every czech and slovak I know likes the other country), but the split was not bloody, which was what was asked.

If a significant majority wants to be independent, and they understand the consequences of becoming independent, then they should be independent. But if 51% of, say, residents of Vermont decide, "The U.S. is a bunch of meanies! We wanna secede!" then that's a shitty reason to secede. However, if 60% or so of Vermont folks decide, "We can be better off without the Americans draining our tax dollars," then they should be allowed to do so.

That would work if only the US Constitution didn't require the other 49 states to agree with Vermont's secession in order for Vermont to legally secede...

That would work if only the US Constitution didn't require the other 49 states to agree with Vermont's secession in order for Vermont to legally secede...

the constitution is irrelevant to the question

I would take it past just if a majority wants to secede. If any individual wishes to secede, they should be able to (i.e. if they want to secede, their house becomes independent.) No one should have to suffer under a monopoly on jurisdiction.

the constitution is irrelevant to the question

Indeed. The whole thing about secession is that you are saying "I am no longer following the Constitution." To have to follow the edicts of a document that you no longer believe in is ludicrous.

If a significant majority wants to be independent, and they understand the consequences of becoming independent, then they should be independent. But if 51% of, say, residents of Vermont decide, "The U.S. is a bunch of meanies! We wanna secede!" then that's a shitty reason to secede. However, if 60% or so of Vermont folks decide, "We can be better off without the Americans draining our tax dollars," then they should be allowed to do so.
Well Vermont would be ok because it is the best US state ever, I mean you gotta love a state which sends a Marxist to congress.

No. Seccession is never justified. How can democracy survive when a minority simply breaks away when they're pissed off? How can anything get done if the opinion has to be unanimous? If seperatism is legal, then democracy is a failure, and other forms of government must be pursued.

However, while regional seperatism is illegal, revolution is allowed to change the system when there is clear and blatant oppression.

How can democracy survive when a minority simply breaks away when they’re pissed off?
Independence-minded Scots, Kurds, etc. are not simply ‘pissed off’. They believe they have a legitimate claim that their region should be treated as an autonomous country. Arguably this is the case.

How can anything get done if the opinion has to be unanimous?
Who’s saying that?

By definition, if a part of the citizenry want to secede from a country/union, then opinion isn’t unanimous.

If seperatism is legal, then democracy is a failure, and other forms of government must be pursued.

However, while regional seperatism is illegal, revolution is allowed to change the system when there is clear and blatant oppression.
Firstly, what is ‘seperatism’ and how, and under who’s jurisdiction, could it be illegal?

Secondly, how does it entail a failure of democracy?

Problem is, the regions that want to secede from whatever country or union that they are currently part of are usually significantly smaller than their ‘parent’ countries.

Take Scotland and the UK for example. The population of Scotland is around 5 million, while the population of the UK is 56 million. Quite some difference; heck, there’s more folks in London than in Scotland! The second referendum in your system would be heavily weighted, to an unfair degree, to the views of the parent country’s citizens.

Now, this doesn’t mean the idea behind the second referendum is completely unfair; I agree that citizens in a parent country should be given some say. After all, to go back to the example of UK for a moment, the Union is meant to be a partnership, not an enslavement. But it would certainly seem as if the region that wanted to secede would always be voted down, assuming most people in the country were against the breaking up of their union.

This might not have much effect in a place like Scotland, but I can imagine a scenario where a truly oppressed ethnic or national group are kept from distancing themselves from their parent country.

The results of the second referendum should be judged seperately. Maybe I should have said that there should have been 3 referendums.

1) Region: You want to secede?
2) Region: Agree to the deal?
3) Country except region: Agree to the deal?

If all this fails, the region should secede unilaterally.

Maybe I should have said that there should have been 3 referendums.

1) Region: You want to secede?
2) Region: Agree to the deal?
3) Country except region: Agree to the deal?
I still think this set-up would suffer from possible abuse by tyranny of the majority.

I get what you’re saying though, and I agree; citizens of the country being seceded from should be consulted. However, the libertarian in me gets jumpy when I hear talk of one set of people’s fates being decided by another.

If all this fails, the region should secede unilaterally.
Violently?

No. Seccession is never justified.

really?

How can democracy survive when a minority simply breaks away when they're pissed off? How can anything get done if the opinion has to be unanimous?

not all decisions are "that's it, i'm leaving" decisions. and those that are, well, either you work out a compromise if staying together is more important, or you break up if you can't. what is wrong with that?

the better question is how can freedom exist if those that do not consent are forced to remain regardless?

surely if a population in a particular area wants to secede and have the willpower to press the issue the parent state won't be able to do a thing about it :confused:

barring using the old fist of course, but that comes a bit shaky if lets say you just fought two global conflicts

the constitution is irrelevant to the question

On the contrary. On one hand, you have the other 49 states allowing Vermone to secede and becoming independent peacefully; on the other, you have a new war.

Gaining independence would require the recognition of the controlling nation (e.g. Britain's recognition or US / Serbia's recognition of Montenegro), either through peaceful means (like Montenegro) or violent means (like the US), either way, the future of the territory is still in the hands of the controlling nation. Especially when dealing with a situation like the one above: Vermont vs. US in terms of military might?

EDIT: I speak of formal independence, not the kind of de facto independence Taiwan enjoys.

On the contrary. On one hand, you have the other 49 states allowing Vermone to secede and becoming independent peacefully; on the other, you have a new war.

which has what to do with the constitution, exactly?

This isn't meant as a justification for violence, but to mean anything, freedom has to be taken. It can't be given.

*takes LG's freedom for personal use* :p

*takes LG's freedom for personal use* :p

DO you like your groin intact? :D

That's very vague, especially depending on the term "nation". As for countries that were peacefully allowed to be independent here are a few examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_independence_referendum%2C_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_revolution (The Baltic States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_revolution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_timor#Independence

There was violence when East Timor became independent, as well as the Baltic States, but in both cases the nation from whom they were declaring independence agreed to their leaving.

The "family of nations" isn't a gang you have to get jumped in to or a fraternity you have to get hazed in to. That is, of course, assuming we want to even put on the pretense of respecting human rights.

Yeah? Well... those countries are... wussies. :p

DO you like your groin intact? :D

And what would your wife say, going after other people's groins like that? :p

And what would your wife say, going after other people's groins like that? :p

"Want to borrow my truncheon?"

:D

"Want to borrow my truncheon?"

:D

I have soap, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Besides, your freedoms aren't here anymore. I've had it reverse engineered and parceled out mass manufactured freedom bits at Wal Mart. Your freedoms aren't free anymore. They're going for $2.99.

:p

I still think this set-up would suffer from possible abuse by tyranny of the majority.

I get what you’re saying though, and I agree; citizens of the country being seceded from should be consulted. However, the libertarian in me gets jumpy when I hear talk of one set of people’s fates being decided by another.


It's not the fate that is being decided. It's the mutual agreement that will follow the independece. Eg: border controls.


Violently?

Violence is rarely justified. But I believe violence would happen only in primitive countries. Not in situations like, Canada-Quebec or UK-Scotland.

really?



not all decisions are "that's it, i'm leaving" decisions. and those that are, well, either you work out a compromise if staying together is more important, or you break up if you can't. what is wrong with that?

the better question is how can freedom exist if those that do not consent are forced to remain regardless?

But most are "that's it, i'm leaving" decisions. And what freedom are you talking about, that would cease to exist? I wouldn't classify the UK as a totalitarian system. From my American viewpoint, the Scots are not seceding for real, viable reasons, but for stupid, arbitrary reasons like "we don't like the English because the English are just stupid."

More to the point, how can a country's government protect its citizens' rights if it can't even protect itself?

I have soap, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Besides, your freedoms aren't here anymore. I've had it reverse engineered and parceled out mass manufactured freedom bits at Wal Mart. Your freedoms aren't free anymore. They're going for $2.99.

:p

:eek: Shit!

which has what to do with the constitution, exactly?
Because you either have the US agreeing to letting Vermont going, or you have war given that the Constitution STILL DONES'T HAVE A GOING IT ALONE CLAUSE.

Because you either have the US agreeing to letting Vermont going, or you have war given that the Constitution STILL DONES'T HAVE A GOING IT ALONE CLAUSE.

yeah, still not seeing any role for the constitution. they leave. you say, "hey, that's not allowed under the constitution!" they say "the independent republic of vermont says 'thats nice'". then, as you note, the rest either lets them go, or declares that the US is an inescapable empire of doom and bombs the crap out of them to force them to stay. in neither case did the constitution come into play in the slightest. in fact, no constitution could, even in principle, except in so far as the seceding region decides to abide by it.

But most are "that's it, i'm leaving" decisions.

really? why do you think so?

And what freedom are you talking about, that would cease to exist?

self-determination. its sorta fundamental to all that 'consent of the governed' stuff. if you don't have that, you don't have a free system.

More to the point, how can a country's government protect its citizens' rights if it can't even protect itself?

how is it not 'protecting itself'?

Freedom is free!


(plus shipping & handling)

:eek: Shit!

Feel the cleansing power of this fully scented and anti-bacterial battlesoap! :p

the constitution is irrelevant to the question

QFT

Feel the cleansing power of this fully scented and anti-bacterial battlesoap! :p

:eek: NOOO!!!!

*tosses paintball grenades everywhere*

I would take it past just if a majority wants to secede. If any individual wishes to secede, they should be able to (i.e. if they want to secede, their house becomes independent.) No one should have to suffer under a monopoly on jurisdiction.

Amen.

:eek: NOOO!!!!

*tosses paintball grenades everywhere*

Your balls (:p) can't repel cleansing of that magnitude.

Point me out a nation that didn't have to fight for it's existence or continued existence.

New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Fiji, Samoa, in fact pretty much all the ex-British and French colonies did not have to fight for their existence.

Point me out a nation that didn't have to fight for it's existence or continued existence.


New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Fiji, Samoa, in fact pretty much all the ex-British and French colonies did not have to fight for their existence.

You just beat me to it. In the Pacific at least, British colonisation and decolonisation was mostly consensual. Fiji asked to be colonised, as did Niue and a few others. Australia and New Zealand resisted obtaining complete independence.

I've always liked the example of Tuvalu. There was never a strong independence movement there. The UK simply told them they had to be decolonised. When they realised that would mean being lumped in with Kiribati, the Tuvaluans did demand seperate independence. There was a referendum, and over 90% voted in favour.

The referendum was overseen by UN officials, who were startled when Tuvaluans told them: "Oh, yes, we rather like the British. They've always been very nice to us. It's a shame they have to go, really, but they tell us we have to be decolonised."

Anyway, to answer the OP, it's a tricky question. In most cases, I'd say there'd have to be at least a 2/3rds majority in favour of independence in the territory in question (by referendum), along with constitutional guarentees protecting any minorities who find themselves in the newly independent country.

Because you either have the US agreeing to letting Vermont going, or you have war given that the Constitution STILL DONES'T HAVE A GOING IT ALONE CLAUSE.

I don't understand why they need such a clause. The way the Constitution works is that it lists the powers and responsibilities the Federal Government has (Article 1 Sections 8 and 9) and lists the things the states are not allowed to do (Article 10). The 10th Amendment states that anything not under either list is a power the state has. Neither is preventing secession allowed under the first list nor is secession prevented by the last.

Texas v. White says it's illegal under the odd reasoning that if a state leaves the Federal government can't ensure that they have a republican form of government. Since Justice Chase was a member of Lincoln's cabinet during the war I question his impartiality in that case.

It’s not the fate that is being decided. It’s the mutual agreement that will follow the independece. Eg: border controls.
Oh, I see what you mean.

That’s fairly sensible.

Violence is rarely justified. But I believe violence would happen only in primitive countries. Not in situations like, Canada-Quebec or UK-Scotland.
By primitive what do you mean?

Non-democratic?



I wouldn’t classify the UK as a totalitarian system. From my American viewpoint, the Scots are not seceding for real, viable reasons, but for stupid, arbitrary reasons like “we don’t like the English because the English are just stupid.”
Then I’d humbly submit that your American viewpoint is a load of codswalop.

There may well be a few racist or empty nationalistic reasons for Scottish independence given by some supporters, but there’s also a number of good reasons for arguing for a split from the Union:

Scotland has its own education system, church, laws and legal system, all quite distinct from the British institutions. Scots law in particular has a number of important distinctions from English and NI law. On top of that, Scotland has a very distinct culture from British culture, and has a long history of being a sovereign nation.

Now, these reasons might not be enough to warrant complete autonomy from Westminster, but it’s easy to see that there are at least cohesive arguments for independence, and not merely, as you suggest, petty racist ones.

You just beat me to it. In the Pacific at least, British colonisation and decolonisation was mostly consensual. Fiji asked to be colonised, as did Niue and a few others. Australia and New Zealand resisted obtaining complete independence.

I've always liked the example of Tuvalu. There was never a strong independence movement there. The UK simply told them they had to be decolonised. When they realised that would mean being lumped in with Kiribati, the Tuvaluans did demand seperate independence. There was a referendum, and over 90% voted in favour.

The referendum was overseen by UN officials, who were startled when Tuvaluans told them: "Oh, yes, we rather like the British. They've always been very nice to us. It's a shame they have to go, really, but they tell us we have to be decolonised."

I believe that much of it was to do with economic necessity. The Pacific Island nations are just not large enough to survive on their own - even now, they are under a form of economic colonisation with Australia and New Zealand being the colonial "masters." Also, I suspect it was because the British left the Pacific to its own devices, while you may have had the Governor, and a few Europeans, it was never imposing British rule; they worked with traditional authorities. Even today, Queen Elizabeth II is considered the Great Chief of Fiji (remembering that Fiji is a Republic).

Also, it is interesting that the UN is still pushing for these micro-nations to become independent - they have been pushing Tokelau to vote in favour of independence, but the Tokelauan's don't want independence.

Also, decolonisation in Africa rarely involved conflict either; at least in terms of the British colonies. There was the Mau-Mau Rebellion, but I believe there wasn't much else.

- If the majority of people who live in Green Close want to be independent from the rest of the UK, should they be allowed to be?

Generally speaking, yes.


- What if the majority of those who voted want independence but not everyone voted because they did not like either settlement and actually a more complex relationship between the two (or more) regions needs to be implimented. Seperation or union is too bipolar.

1.There can be a thing called quorum in referenda (in Italy, there is). That is, a referendum needs a minimum percentage of voters (usually 50% of the potential electors +1) to be valid. Of course, one could place even a higher quorum, like 66% +1 or 75% +1 (100% cannot be achieved, there is always someone who's unable to vote).
2.Similarly, you (or the UN, more appropriatedly) can place an higher request on the votes required to get independence, like 66%+1 of the total valid votes.
3.Anyway, about the choice between separation and union being excessively bipolar: that's the UN's task. Talk with all sides, then prepare a plan with many viable options, etc etc, if an agreement cannot be reached, then call a UN-granted referendum.


- Sometimes the independence of one part of a country would actually create two countries (IE in the case of Scotland, it would also make England into a seperate entity) thus actually both groups should be considered

No. Because, let's say in the case Scotland voted for independence, the UK would still exist, limited to England, NI, Wales. Anyway, it's not for the englishmen to decide about the independence of Scotland: it's for the scotsmen. The englishmen can vote about separating England from the UK: in this case, the UK would be Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? It's called principle of self-determination. Who lives in place X decides about place X.


- Would the independence of the region just create more, not less hostility between the two regions
Take the dissolution of the Czechoslovak Federation: the Slovaks wanted independence, they voted for it. Now they're buddies - and both in EU.

On this planet, we have countries ranging from micronations like the Vatican to megafederations like Russia. So, dimension of the place looking for independence isn't an issue. Anyway, every single independence request is different, so one cannot fix precise general rules about everything, except for self-determination, and every case must be judged on a per-case basis. That's what we pay the UN for, also. See Timor East for examples.

Another thing: many federations have laws about secession of one of their component parts - Tito's Jugoslavia had, Gorby's CCCP had (enacted 1990 iirc). Following those laws, when present, might be the best option.

The Czechs and the Slovaks hate each other's guts. It was only a peaceful split because neither wanted the other to remain.

Erm...I live in the Czech republic and none of the Czechs I know have any problem with the Slovaks at all.

Generally speaking, yes.

Thats just stupid. A road cannot be an independent state. It is not practical.

No. Because, let's say in the case Scotland voted for independence, the UK would still exist, limited to England, NI, Wales. Anyway, it's not for the englishmen to decide about the independence of Scotland: it's for the scotsmen.

It is however something that affects the UK as a whole, because (for instance) the UK flag is no longer relevent, and England supplies 20% more tax per head to the Scots, along with all the resources and business etc shared. It is a decision that significently affects both and thus both should have a say.

There may well be a few racist or empty nationalistic reasons for Scottish independence given by some supporters, but there’s also a number of good reasons for arguing for a split from the Union:

Scotland has its own education system, church, laws and legal system, all quite distinct from the British institutions. Scots law in particular has a number of important distinctions from English and NI law. On top of that, Scotland has a very distinct culture from British culture, and has a long history of being a sovereign nation.

Now, these reasons might not be enough to warrant complete autonomy from Westminster, but it’s easy to see that there are at least cohesive arguments for independence, and not merely, as you suggest, petty racist ones.
Nicely (and rationally) summed up. Saves me the bother of typing... cheers! :)

Thats just stupid. A road cannot be an independent state. It is not practical.
Practicality isn’t the issue here; political self-determination is.

As I have mentioned to you before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13216429&postcount=14):

“Surely no-one should be forced to be a citizen of a country? If I want to renounce my British citizenship, AFAIK there’s nothing stopping me. The actual problem arises if the residents of Green Close believe they have a legitimate right to the land, houses, etc. in Green Close itself.

Supporters of an independent Scotland who want independence for nationalistic reasons (as opposed to those of us who support ‘independence’ only in the sense of more local, decentralised government moving away from Westminster) would argue that they have much more right than the hypothetical residents of Green Close, and would probably cite Scotland’s history as an independent nation and its distinctive language/dialect, culture, education system, law courts, church, etc., that are separate to British/English culture, etc.”

It is however something that affects the UK as a whole
No-one’s denying this, it’s a necessary truth.

because (for instance) the UK flag is no longer relevent,
Hardly a reason to stick with a Union, is it?

and England supplies 20% more tax per head to the Scots,
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Are you arguing English citizens (plus presumably Welsh and NI citizens) pay 20% more tax than Scots, or that 20% of tax paid by English citizens goes to Scotland?

AFAIK, both are inaccurate representations of how tax is distributed in the UK.

along with all the resources and business etc shared.
I agree this is a major issue, and a problematic one for the Nats. Scotland and the rest of the UK share in many institutions, while many Scots hold important positions at the heart of Government (the PM and Chancellor, to name but two) and business.

It is a decision that significently affects both and thus both should have a say.
I don’t deny (who would?) that Scottish independence would significantly affect the UK and its citizens, but I don’t see why 50 million people should have a say over the fates of 5 million.



Nicely (and rationally) summed up. Saves me the bother of typing... cheers! :)
No probs.

I get quite pissed off when people suggest that all Scots who want independence, or at least political self-determination, are somehow racists.

Quite a racist attitude, one could say. ;)

Generally speaking, yes.




No. Because, let's say in the case Scotland voted for independence, the UK would still exist, limited to England, NI, Wales. Anyway, it's not for the englishmen to decide about the independence of Scotland: it's for the scotsmen. The englishmen can vote about separating England from the UK: in this case, the UK would be Scotland, Wales and NI.
Why? It's called principle of self-determination. Who lives in place X decides about place X.




But also bare in mind that the English do NOT get a say on their politics what so ever, English politics is played by Scotts and Scotts are allowed to vote on English things while Scotlands politics is played by Scotts and the English are not allowed to vote in anything in Scotland. I think that everyone involved gets a vote on whether anyone becomes independant or not. You never know, maby the English have had enough of the Scots and want them to become independant. There has also been a lot of talk where I live in England about England becoming independant of the Union. If the Scots, creators of the Union can become independant, then why cant the HQ become independant. Anyway, i have a too strong a political mind for my age and I hope the Union never breaks. And as I said; everyone involved should get a vote.

But also bare in mind that the English do NOT get a say on their politics what so ever
Granted, it’s not much political power, but eligible English citizens of the UK get a say on thier politics once every 4-5 years, just like any Scottish, Welsh or Northen Irish citizen of the UK.

English politics is played by Scotts and Scotts are allowed to vote on English things while Scotlands politics is played by Scotts and the English are not allowed to vote in anything in Scotland.
Firstly, the term is ‘Scots’.

Secondly, us Scots don’t get to vote on any English-only matter, and vice versa. Scottish MPs, however, do vote on matters affecting the UK, but so do English MPs, Welsh MPs and NI MPs; because they are members of the British parliament.

Now, the problem arises when issues devolved to Wales or Scotland (and perhaps NI; I’m not up-to-date on the state of NI devolution) trump issues decided by Westminster. I agree it is despicable that Scottish MPs have helped vote through measures that don’t apply to Scotland, but this is hardly the fault of the Scottish people, now is it? Lay the blame at the Labour government and their setting up of the devolved system.

Personally, I would like to see a devolved English government; perhaps even a few for the North and South.

I think that everyone involved gets a vote on whether anyone becomes independant or not.
A system, as I have already discussed above, that is flawed by tyranny of the majority and a lack of self-determination.