Scotland to leave the UK?

[ITL]

Go back to looking for that monster in Loch Ness, rumour has it that it has chests full of diamonds in a secret underwater base. I hear that the real reason the SNP want independence is so that they can keep the diamonds for themselves.

I knew it! Bastards!

 

[Deckerd]

It's Scotland's rain.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Nah...sadly, our politicians have no trouble flipping off the rest of the world when it suits them. And are perfectly capable of justifying in their own minds a war to keep a state in line...even after dogging Russia for the better part of 2 decades about their supposed abysmal treatment of Chechnya.

Alaska joined the United States out of its own desire and free will, and has hardly been treated badly. Chechnya's history with Russia is a bit more questionable, and the Soviets treated everyone abysmally.

 

[Darth Duck]

Alaska was financial transaction.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Alaska joined the United States out of its own desire and free will, and has hardly been treated badly.

Are you talking about some weird mirror universe Alaska I've never heard of?

Cause you're certainly not describing the "real" Alaska.

 

[Kegg]

And even if that was true and Alaska joined the United States via democratic mandate, all the voters would now be dead.

Why should the democratic mandate of a bunch of dead people be held more valid then living people?

Besides, realistically? In some alternate unvierse where A. Alaskans want independence as a majority and B. Alaskans achieve independence, I'm sure American oil companies would just find a way to control all of Alaska's oil. Who needs invasion when you can just buy the political class?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Again, I point to The Civil War as a reason why any state that actually decides to leave won't be allowed to.

 

[TheGodBen]

And I could point to the Irish rebellion of 1798 as an example of how any country that tries to leave the British empire wouldn't be allowed, but that would be a ridiculous statement because it fails to account for the two centuries that have passed since then. The world has changed since the time of the American Civil War and western nations generally operate in completely different ways nowadays.

I mean, if the British are willing to allow Scotland secede should they choose to do so democratically, but America wouldn't allow the same for Alaska, does that not suggest that something is seriously screwed up?

 

[Trilliam]

I don't understand why Scotland can't be like the rest of the Commonwealth Countries that don't share a physical border with England. A Consitutional Monachy - The Queen is still the Queen, we have the Westminster System of Govt....

 

[Sean Aaron]

There isn't any reason why that cannot be the case. If Scotland decides to go I'm sure things will be worked out in an orderly fashion.

I expect that if a state wanted to secede from the United States that too could be worked out without bloodshed, unless the boasting about being defenders of freedom is just a bunch of bullshit.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Alaska was financial transaction.

And New Amsterdam was a colony.

Alaska joined the United States out of its own desire and free will, and has hardly been treated badly.

Are you talking about some weird mirror universe Alaska I've never heard of?

Cause you're certainly not describing the "real" Alaska.

Yes, actually I am.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Alaska was financial transaction.

And New Amsterdam was a colony.

Cause you're certainly not describing the "real" Alaska.

Yes, actually I am.

Do you even read the stuff you link?

Alaska wanting full statehood has nothing to do with them wanting to be part of the US (cause they were part of the US at that point anyway). They wanted full statehood cause that would give them equal rights with other states and actually more autonomy.

 

[Myasishchev]

And even if that was true and Alaska joined the United States via democratic mandate, all the voters would now be dead.

Why should the democratic mandate of a bunch of dead people be held more valid then living people?

Besides, realistically? In some alternate unvierse where A. Alaskans want independence as a majority and B. Alaskans achieve independence, I'm sure American oil companies would just find a way to control all of Alaska's oil. Who needs invasion when you can just buy the political class?

Because separatism from a morally defensible liberal democracy is a categorical evil?

I expect that if a state wanted to secede from the United States that too could be worked out without bloodshed, unless the boasting about being defenders of freedom is just a bunch of bullshit.

As a practical matter, no state that would secede from the United States should be allowed to. But even then, without an clear instance of tyranny, secession is unjustified.

 

[Goliath]

Because separatism from a morally defensible liberal democracy is a categorical evil?

That's a bold claim.

But in any case, I don't see how that's a workable principle in practice. A separatist movement could only exist, and win the support of a majority of Alaskans, if there was serious disagreement about the moral defensibility of the United States. To insist that they accept your viewpoint, instead of their own, would be equivalent to appointing yourself both judge and defense attorney in a trial.

Realistically, all that matters in a secession crisis is power. Like any other revolution, an Alaskan secessionist movement would require five preconditions for success: mass discontent; elite dissent; a unifying motive and ideology (to bring the masses and the dissident elites together); a paralyzing state crisis; and a permissive international context.

Given the small size and powerlessness of the state of Alaska and its population compared to the rest of the United States, and the unlikelihood that any other country would intervene on Alaska's behalf, it's the fourth precondition that really matters--the continued willingness and ability of the United States to use its police and military power to defend its territory and suppress any separatist movement by force. That is to say: on the ability of Alaskans to persuade the American people to let them go.

That's where your claim about separatism being a categorical evil would come into play--in the political arena, and the battle for public opinion. No doubt Alaskan separatists would bring up counter-examples like the peaceful secession of Norway from Sweden, and attempt to hold a referendum to show that the secession process itself was entirely democratic.

 

[Deckerd]

In the 21st century would the USA get away with such an imperialist attitude? If there were a Scotland-type referendum in Alaska and the result was hugely in favour of separation, would the USA have a leg to stand on if they opposed with any kind of force? I think not. I also think Alaska will be a tropical paradise before it secedes from the USA.

 

[Skywalker]

I do find it amusing that, in a country created by people who broke away from their parent government, there are people who oppose the idea of any states separating to form their own nation.

 

[Deckerd]

Do you mean Scotland?

 

[Skywalker]

Oh, no, I was referring to Americans who oppose the idea of states leaving the US under any circumstances.

 

[TheGodBen]

Because separatism from a morally defensible liberal democracy is a categorical evil?

As a practical matter, no state that would secede from the United States should be allowed to. But even then, without an clear instance of tyranny, secession is unjustified.

I'm hoping that this is some sort of parody that I'm just not getting. Otherwise it is right up where with "You're either with us or against us" on the scale of blinkered nonsense.

 

[Goliath]

In the 21st century would the USA get away with such an imperialist attitude? If there were a Scotland-type referendum in Alaska and the result was hugely in favour of separation, would the USA have a leg to stand on if they opposed with any kind of force? I think not.

I think the question here is: what's to stop them from getting away with it?

I mean--the international community couldn't stop the United States from invading and occupying Iraq, and hasn't stopped Russia from doing as it pleases in Chechnya. They haven't been able to make Israel give up the Occupied Territories. They couldn't even make Indonesia give up East Timor. How are they going to make the United States give up Alaska?

It seems to me that the only thing that could force the Americans to give up Alaska in such a situation would be the Americans themselves. I'm sure they'd be able to find both collaborators in Alaska and a "coalition of the willing" outside the USA to help them carry on, even in the face of widespread opposition and condemnation.