Scotland to leave the UK?

[{ Emilia }]

Seriously: Reading for comprehension. It's a wonderful thing. So far nothing you've said has had the remotest resemblance to anything I've posted.

Maybe you should curb your eagerness to be anti-American long enough to read what I actually wrote and respond appropriately.

I understood what you said; I don't think your issues are valid. I thought I was pretty clear.

RJDiogenes likes to think that nobody else understands him. I think the thread shows perfectly well that he's the one with the reading comprehension issues.

Oh, and good job calling people anti-American because they happen to not agree with you or dare to criticize America. Next time just use: "You are either with RJDiogenes or you're against him!" and try and look like Donald Rumsfeld when saying it.

It's funny how discussing things with some people on this forum is just plain pointless.

 

[Trilliam]

Your responses indicate that I would deny people their right to self-determination and that I don't think a war-free secession is possible. That's the exact opposite of what I said.

And you don't think protecting the rights of the minority are valid? You don't think a secession agreement should involve reimbursement for Federal property and protection of or reimbursement for personal property? You don't think the United States should be concerned about the Rights of its citizens who didn't vote for secession and don't want to become citizens of a foreign country? Really? That's pretty bizarre, if you ask me.

In this hypothetical situation, apart from losing the referendum (a democratic process) what have the minority to worry about? Their are still members of the Commonwealth of Nations, Her Majesty is still their Queen. The new Sovereign State would (I presume) become signatory to various international treaties re various human rights, develop their own Anti discrimination laws. Not to mention any rights that may be codifed into the new Sovereign State's constitution.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Your responses indicate that I would deny people their right to self-determination and that I don't think a war-free secession is possible. That's the exact opposite of what I said.

And you don't think protecting the rights of the minority are valid? You don't think a secession agreement should involve reimbursement for Federal property and protection of or reimbursement for personal property? You don't think the United States should be concerned about the Rights of its citizens who didn't vote for secession and don't want to become citizens of a foreign country? Really? That's pretty bizarre, if you ask me.

True, you didn't specifically state that, you merely provided a list of issues that would need to be sorted.

I agree there's a list of things including property that need to be addressed, but I think that's contractural trivia you go through after recognising that the majority of the population in question wants to be a separate nation. These are not matters that need to be worried about prior to deciding whether or not to leave.

True, all that stuff would be part of the process once secession was approved. Approval would be the big hurdle-- Congress would never go for it, so it would have to be argued before the Supreme Court on the basis of the 10th Amendment. I hope it never happens but it would be an amazing thing to see.

And I don't hate America. I think the priorities are fucked-up over there re: work/life balance and the social contract, but that's it. I definitely think people would be better off if it broke up into smaller bits.

Well, the first part is true of many places these days. The second part I obviously disagree with.

RJDiogenes likes to think that nobody else understands him. I think the thread shows perfectly well that he's the one with the reading comprehension issues.

And yet I was proven right again.

In this hypothetical situation, apart from losing the referendum (a democratic process) what have the minority to worry about? Their are still members of the Commonwealth of Nations, Her Majesty is still their Queen. The new Sovereign State would (I presume) become signatory to various international treaties re various human rights, develop their own Anti discrimination laws. Not to mention any rights that may be codifed into the new Sovereign State's constitution.

My point is that it's not enough to presume; there have to be guarantees. Once that new nation is independent, it can do what it wants.

 

[Trilliam]

My point is that it's not enough to presume; there have to be guarantees. Once that new nation is independent, it can do what it wants.

Um, this would all be spelled out in the Parliamentary debates and material published BEFORE the referendum would be held. Appointments to various official positions, the Govt model that the new entity would be etc.

FWIW, we held a referendum re becoming a Republic in 1999. The debates and campaigning ran for a VERY long time. In the end, the referendum was defeated. The model proposed was rejected.

Proposed changes to the Constitution would also have to be agreed to aftre Parliamentary debate then passed by the referendum.

In Australia, all eligible people 18 years & older MUST register to vote AND attendance at a polling place is compulsory (if unable to attend on the day, lodging a prepoll ballot). WIth voter turn out of 95%+, evreyone has a say.

 

[Holdfast]

I had to study French because my school had no other option...

I wonder what Scotland will be like if they leave the UK?

Following the above logic of having to learn the language of your nearest neighbour, I guess they'll finally learn some English in school.

Better late than never, right?

(does this thread actually merit any serious responses? I haven't attempted reading it properly yet and am disinclined to make the effort based on a superficial skim-through.)

 

[TheGodBen]

There was some fun stuff about flags early on in the thread, before a certain poster showed up.

 

[Myasishchev]

There was some fun stuff about flags early on in the thread, before a certain poster showed up.

 

[Sean Aaron]

True, all that stuff would be part of the process once secession was approved. Approval would be the big hurdle-- Congress would never go for it, so it would have to be argued before the Supreme Court on the basis of the 10th Amendment. I hope it never happens but it would be an amazing thing to see.

Well, if Congress would block the secession of a member state I'd say the United States' credentials as a democratic society are worthless.

 

[RJDiogenes]

My point is that it's not enough to presume; there have to be guarantees. Once that new nation is independent, it can do what it wants.

Um, this would all be spelled out in the Parliamentary debates and material published BEFORE the referendum would be held. Appointments to various official positions, the Govt model that the new entity would be etc.

Before of after, this is what I said must be done.

True, all that stuff would be part of the process once secession was approved. Approval would be the big hurdle-- Congress would never go for it, so it would have to be argued before the Supreme Court on the basis of the 10th Amendment. I hope it never happens but it would be an amazing thing to see.

Well, if Congress would block the secession of a member state I'd say the United States' credentials as a democratic society are worthless.

I disagree. For one thing, democracy doesn't necessarily mean dissolution of the country-- after all, if the country doesn't exist, the government can no longer protect the Rights of its citizens. And any citizen is free to surrender their citizenship at any time, so why let them take pieces of the country with them? For another thing, it's the job of the representatives in Washington to think of the greater good of the whole country. For another thing, the United States is not a pure democracy, obviously, because such a thing wouldn't survive long. It has a philosophy based on certain principles; which is why we have so many laws designed to protect us from "the tyranny of the majority" and so on.

Also, as I asked before, what is self-determination and who does it apply to? We discuss States seceding from the Union as if they have some special right to do so, but what if only half a state wanted to secede? What if just Cape Cod wanted to secede? What if it was just Salt Lake City? What if it was just Billy Bob's Justus compound in Arkansas? Does anybody with half an acre who doesn't want to pay taxes get to secede? That pretty much negates the notion of a country and of society in general.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I think any entity that can reasonably be self-sustaining has a right to separate. The United States isn't materially harmed by Hawaii being an independent nation. If San Francisco wanted to be independent I don't see the harm in that either, but it's less likely to happen than Hawaii.

Yes individuals can surrender their citizenship; if you're talking about a population of many thousands who don't actually want to leave their homes, that's not a realistic solution, is it?

 

[Trilliam]

This discussion is getting boring and I'm getting a bit tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

 

[Shaytan]

This discussion is getting boring and I'm getting a bit tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

Yep, and we still don't know what to do with Scotland. I'm very tempted to try to sell it to China, just to see what will happen next.

 

[Deckerd]

I, for one, will welcome our new Chinese overlords.

 

[Shaytan]

Pffff...what's the point if you don't even fight back ?

 

[TheGodBen]

There was some fun stuff about flags early on in the thread, before a certain poster showed up.

Not you. I may disagree with you on this issue, but you can formulate an argument and gave me something interesting to discuss for a while there. No, I'm referring to someone whose main purpose in this thread seems to have been to say inflammatory nationalist rubbish.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Well, if Congress would block the secession of a member state I'd say the United States' credentials as a democratic society are worthless.

I think any entity that can reasonably be self-sustaining has a right to separate. The United States isn't materially harmed by Hawaii being an independent nation. If San Francisco wanted to be independent I don't see the harm in that either, but it's less likely to happen than Hawaii.

Yes individuals can surrender their citizenship; if you're talking about a population of many thousands who don't actually want to leave their homes, that's not a realistic solution, is it?

You know, I really like what you're saying.

 

[Myasishchev]

There was some fun stuff about flags early on in the thread, before a certain poster showed up.

Not you. I may disagree with you on this issue, but you can formulate an argument and gave me something interesting to discuss for a while there. No, I'm referring to someone whose main purpose in this thread seems to have been to say inflammatory nationalist rubbish.

USA! USA!

And this has nothing to do with anything, but Admiral Shran's avatar is really great.

 

[Sean Aaron]

And this has nothing to do with anything, but Admiral Shran's avatar is really great.

I keep thinking it's a photo from an alternate universe where Dr. Manhattan was Mahatma Ghandi...

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think any entity that can reasonably be self-sustaining has a right to separate. The United States isn't materially harmed by Hawaii being an independent nation. If San Francisco wanted to be independent I don't see the harm in that either, but it's less likely to happen than Hawaii.

It sounds like the end result of this line of thinking would be a return to feudalism, which isn't a very appealing thought. Reasonably self-sustaining is kind of vague-- all of these little Right Wing gun nut havens and Left Wing hippie communes think that they can be self-sustaining, but many countries have trouble enough being self-sustaining. It would be interesting to see how a State or other fragment would fare as an independent nation, but it's unlikely to happen.

Yes individuals can surrender their citizenship; if you're talking about a population of many thousands who don't actually want to leave their homes, that's not a realistic solution, is it?

No, but unless you have 100% agreement to secede in that State, you'll have people who will have to be relocated or give up their citizenship in any case.

 

[Trilliam]

It sounds like the end result of this line of thinking would be a return to feudalism, which isn't a very appealing thought.

You have some really, um, interesting ideas about systems of Govt other than the USA.

No, but unless you have 100% agreement to secede in that State, you'll have people who will have to be relocated or give up their citizenship in any case.

As I've said, repeatedly, if the motion to secede (or what ever change in a Constitution is being proposed) is carried by the requisiite number of properly enrolled eligible voters, in a properly run free and fair ballot - tough luck. That's democracy in action.


Hw many referenda have you voted in, since enrolling to vote?