What are your thoughts on secession?

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,254
Welsh Marches
#51
That is all very well in theory, but in a civilized democratic nation people will work out their differences in a peaceful manner, allowing a negotiated secession by a coherent region if a majority want it, while those wishing to secede will pursue their aim in a peaceful and democratic manner; after all, who would want to live in a nation in which the people of a certain region are merely being kept in it by the use of force? This is not a merely theoretical matter in the UK, where a referendum was held quite recently on Scottish independence. One could compare how the Spanish central government dealt with the Catalan issue.
 
Likes: Futurist

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,485
Dispargum
#52
That is all very well in theory, but in a civilized democratic nation people will work out their differences in a peaceful manner, allowing a negotiated secession by a coherent region if a majority want it, while those wishing to secede will pursue their aim in a peaceful and democratic manner; after all, who would want to live in a nation in which the people of a certain region are merely being kept in it by the use of force? This is not a merely theoretical matter in the UK, where a referendum was held quite recently on Scottish independence. One could compare how the Spanish central government dealt with the Catalan issue.

Yes, but negotiations, compromise, working out differences, etc is hard work. I suspect most secession movements are driven by a kind of laziness - secession, even war, are perceived as easier than negotiation and compromise. In reality, war is difficult, costly, destructive, etc, but perception usually trumps reality.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#55
"I agree with the right of self-determination."


I deny the existence of that at and all other so-called 'natural rights'. Non are inherited, or 'self evident' All are invented./acquired and seldom achieved without struggle.

Such rights are regularly removed or ignored all over the world

I was going to use China as an example, but have not read the Chinese constitution and don't know for a fact how the PRC government actually behaves. I think that censorship of the internet, religious persecution and the Tiananmen square massacre in 1989 may be indicative..

Instead I mention am easy one, the US: The first thing which comes to mind is the unconstitutional interment of Japanese American citizens(including their children, many actually born in the US) during WW2

The the unconstitutional Communist witch hunt of the"House Of Un American Activities" . It was around fo ra long time' but is most notorious from when it was headed by the odorous Eugene McCarthy. People tried to challenge McCarthy in the in courts, but the courts threw out the challenges

The the most infamous were perhaps the Jim Crow Laws in the Southern US States which existed from just after the Civiil War until the 1960's. Then came the Civi Rights movement, and the use of Federal troops to enforce desegregation.

I've read a claim that president Obama ignored or evaded the constitution on no less than 12 occasions. I can't prover that, it may be an 'alternative fact'

Can't prove this either, it's just an impression covering the current presidency. Since the election I've gained the impression that the current president has an open contempt for the Constitution ,especially for human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Not sure if the US constitution has been breached by the recent apparent breaches of the human rights of illegal immigrants, especially children

Human rights are useless unless they can be enforced.

I have long agreed wit Mao's position that "power grows from the barrel of a gun" . This position is known as The Conflict theory of power.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,371
SoCal
#56
I agree, you are naive. As a rule, States don't voluntarily permit secession. That's how civil wars start.
Yes, I agree that states are reluctant to support secession of their own territory, and I certainly understand why. That said, though, there are occasional exceptions--such as the recent Scottish referendum (2014) or France's voluntary withdrawal from Algeria--albeit that one was after eight years of warfare.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,371
SoCal
#57
I'm going to take a contradictory position. I agree with the right of self-determination. I also believe that life is impossible without a certain degree of stability and predictability. Why would a national government invest in infrastructure in a region that might secede in the near future? I believe that government is a contract between all concerned parties: national government, state or provincial government, local government, and the citizens. Contracts can only be broken for a very short list of reasons. The most common grounds for breaking a contract is mutual consent. I believe a government being seceded from has the right to enforce its contract by force. I also believe an oppressed people or region are allowed to fight for their independence. Not every problem has a peaceful solution. Unfortunately, sometimes these questions can only be answered through force of arms.
IMHO, a good strategy in regards to increasing the possibility of your country permanently keeping control of a particular territory is to flood this territory with settlers from your own country (or from neighboring countries which are similar to your own country). The U.S. was able to do this with its western territories while France never managed to do this with Algeria due to it not having enough settlers there (even at their peak, pieds-noirs only made up something like 15% of the total Algerian population; now, compare that with the solid White majority that most of the western U.S. had until several decades ago).
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#58
Actually, there HAS been a successful example of secession in Oz.

It's called the The Principality of Hutt River ,and it's situated in Western Australia.

"The Principality of Hutt River, often referred to by its former name, the Hutt River Province, is a micronation in Australia. The principality claims to be an independent sovereign state founded on 21 April 1970. The territory is located 517 km (354 mi) north of Perth, near the town of Northampton in the state of Western Australia. It has an area of 75 square kilometres (29 sq mi), making it larger than several independent countries. It is not recognised as a country by the Australian Government or any other national government, and the High Court of Australia and Supreme Court of Western Australia have rejected submissions arguing that it is not subject to Australian laws.

The Principality is a regional tourist attraction and issues its own currency, stamps and passports (which are not recognised by the Australian Government or any other government).[3] The micronation was founded on 21 April 1970 when Leonard Casley declared his farm to be an independent country, the Hutt River Province. He attempted to secede from Australia over a dispute concerning wheat production quotas. A few years later, Casley began styling himself 'Prince Leonard' and granting family members royal titles, although he did not include the word "principality" in his country's official name until 2006"

Principality of Hutt River - Wikipedia

Should you ever visit the Principality of Hutt River ,and are having a bit of a wander, do avoid the large gum trees; they are infested with vicious Drop Bears. These creatures were responsible for the deaths of three Japanese tourists, in November 1989. As is their habit, ignoring warnings, the Japanese tried to get a group photo with the bears. All Aussies know that drop bears REALLY hate having their photos taken. :hug: . See reference below about the authenticity of the drop bear.


Drop bear - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions