6 ms·

The comment at the bottom of the article reminds me why secession is virtually impossible in most places in the world. Any such attempts falter because they're

by hetman 10y ago

The comment at the bottom of the article reminds me why secession is virtually impossible in most places in the world. Any such attempts falter because they're instantly declared unconstitutional by the parent country. The global community encourages this kind of status quo because many countries worry their ethnic minority will be next. The only way sadly still seems to be decades of bloodshed before the host population gets fed up enough to let them go. I don't only mean developing countries like Sudan either. It took until 1998 for the Belfast agreement to be signed over Northern Ireland for example.

mmanfrin 10y ago
I don't think this is always true. Scotland was given its referendum. Britain voted on secession from the EU. Northern Ireland is talking about unification. There are certainly places like Spain which have been beating the drum of 'No Catalan Independence', but there are modern states that do recognize some uncodified right to self determination. Some resistance is natural though, and in some cases good -- tribal divisions can happen on any line. If California seceded, the Jefferson region would want to secede from that, and no doubt there would be even smaller fractures. In the end, I think every state has its own gravity and own structural strength. Grow too big, and you suffer from your own weight, risk fractures.
- hetman 10y ago
  But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. Arguably Scotland benefited from this change in the UK's public opinion as a result of Ireland, without having to go through the same process.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    > But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war. The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed. Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      That's a pretty charitable assessment. The 19th century saw England enact a policy of near genocide, mass deportation and political/economic oppression. Ireland was little different than any other third world colony.
      - gsnedders 10y ago
        Oh, the UK completely fucked over Ireland, there's little doubt about that, despite legally being in a far better place than the colonies (they actually had representation, most obviously) they practically weren't. The question is whether bloodshed was inevitable in the path to independence, and I don't think it's reasonable to call the actions of the state bloodshed on that path except when it was in direct suppression of it (and I don't think there was any of that prior to the Easter Rising, unless one considers the rebellion of 1798 when Ireland was still legally a separate country, though had had the same ruler as England since the 12th century, albeit with a separate political structure). Certainly the blood on the UK's hands led to many of the calls for independence, but if independence had been granted in, e.g., 1886 (i.e., the First Home Rule Bill) would it be freedom through bloodshed, or would it be freedom through wanting to do better yourselves? I'd definitely say the latter.
    - flukus 10y ago
      If history has taught us anything since then it's that slow decolonization is a much better idea than a quick one.
      - vacri 10y ago
        The British control of Ireland was more 'occupation' than 'colonisation'.
        flukus 10y ago
        Is there a big difference? In general I'd say colonization is more genocidy, but so was the occupation of Ireland. They even setup plantations, etc.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    > Northern Ireland _is_ an > example of freedom through > bloodshed ... > the UK conceded to give them > genuine choice This is non-historic. Northern Ireland resisted unification with Ireland, opting out of home rule, given the choice. 35% of the population were Catholic only, and its not unreasonable to simplify to say that the rest wanted to remain part of the UK. Were one to hold a refendum today about joining Ireland, you might expect a near-enough split vote. The idea that Great Britain were somehow wedded to the idea of keeping Northern Ireland welded to the rest of it against the will of the people is simply factually incorrect. Until recently there were a lot of armed people on both sides of that question with the majority in NI wanting to stay part of the UK. Britain's treatment of Ireland was a car crash over the previous few centuries, but the narrative that it was resisting the popular will of the people by keeping it in the UK is simply wrong.
- dboreham 10y ago
  Scotland always was a separate country though, since 1314 or so. There was a referendum in the 70's fwiw (also lost).
  - Leynos 10y ago
    The referendum in 1979 was over devolution, not independence. There was a narrow majority in favour, but an additional condition was attached that more than 40% of the electorate must have voted "yes", so the result was discarded. A subsequent referendum on devolution in 1997 yielded a "yes" majority, hence Scotland now having its own parliament.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The positive examples you cite are very recent though, and historically unusual. As another poster commented, Northern Ire;and's status is the culmination of a long and bloody insurgency or fight for freedom, depending on which side you support. You could argue that it took 25 years of guerrilla war there before the idea of holding a plebiscite on the province's future was taken seriously.
finid 10y ago
Don't you just feel for Ukraine. But the Ukrainian govt has itself to blame, for being used as a pawn. Now Ukranians can only look wistfully in the direction of Crimea
brandmeyer 10y ago
Its not just ethnic minorities, either. I've been thinking that a possible solution to the rural/urban cultural divide in the US would be to allow the secession of some metro areas from their parent states, forming new city-states in the process.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Isn't Hong Kong a sort of semi-precedent? As I understand it, it never seceded from China, but was a semi-independent economic experiment.
  - empath75 10y ago
    It was a British colony.
  - geowwy 10y ago
    Not exactly. The British Empire coerced China into leasing them Hong Kong for 100 years. After the 100 year lease was up China agreed to keep Hong Kong as a semi-independent "special administrative region". The other special administrative region is Macau, and China has proposed that Taiwan become a special administrative region too.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > China has proposed that Taiwan become a special administrative region too. Hah!
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        This is no laughing matter. There are few areas of potential conflict where both sides populations believe their side is 100% right. We are one stupid politician away from a world war fought over the issue of Taiwan.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Like everything in history it is a bit more complex than this. Parts of of Hong Kong were on perpetual leases while the New Territories were on 99 year lease [1]. In the end it all came down to pure politics and China was adimant that Hong Kong was to be returned in full. The UK was in no position to disagree. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over...
BurningFrog 10y ago
Norway itself seceded from the union with Sweden in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_betwe...
- qw 10y ago
  The difference is that Norway was always a separate country. It shared the same king as Denmark and later Sweden, but it was not considered part of the King's home country.
ende 10y ago
International relations can largely be described as honor among thieves.

by hetman 10y ago

mmanfrin 10y ago

I don't think this is always true. Scotland was given its referendum. Britain voted on secession from the EU. Northern Ireland is talking about unification. There are certainly places like Spain which have been beating the drum of 'No Catalan Independence', but there are modern states that do recognize some uncodified right to self determination. Some resistance is natural though, and in some cases good -- tribal divisions can happen on any line. If California seceded, the Jefferson region would want to secede from that, and no doubt there would be even smaller fractures. In the end, I think every state has its own gravity and own structural strength. Grow too big, and you suffer from your own weight, risk fractures.

hetman 10y ago
But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. Arguably Scotland benefited from this change in the UK's public opinion as a result of Ireland, without having to go through the same process.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  > But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. I think that's an oversimplification; the intent was there to give Ireland self-governance from the 1880s (initially as a single, unified area). Notably, the Government of Ireland Act 1914, better known as the Third Home Rule Bill (the prior two had failed to pass through Parliament) would've led to a unitary Ireland, though this led to the Home Rule Crisis (though there had been some rioting going back to the 1880s) and was ultimately never implemented due to the outbreak of war. The real fatal errors in the case of Ireland were the handling of the Easter Rising of 1916 and the coupling of implementation of Home Rule with conscription in Ireland, along with many more errors during the guerrilla war that followed. Had WW1 not happened when it did, who knows what would have happened in Ireland.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    That's a pretty charitable assessment. The 19th century saw England enact a policy of near genocide, mass deportation and political/economic oppression. Ireland was little different than any other third world colony.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      Oh, the UK completely fucked over Ireland, there's little doubt about that, despite legally being in a far better place than the colonies (they actually had representation, most obviously) they practically weren't. The question is whether bloodshed was inevitable in the path to independence, and I don't think it's reasonable to call the actions of the state bloodshed on that path except when it was in direct suppression of it (and I don't think there was any of that prior to the Easter Rising, unless one considers the rebellion of 1798 when Ireland was still legally a separate country, though had had the same ruler as England since the 12th century, albeit with a separate political structure). Certainly the blood on the UK's hands led to many of the calls for independence, but if independence had been granted in, e.g., 1886 (i.e., the First Home Rule Bill) would it be freedom through bloodshed, or would it be freedom through wanting to do better yourselves? I'd definitely say the latter.
  - flukus 10y ago
    If history has taught us anything since then it's that slow decolonization is a much better idea than a quick one.
    - vacri 10y ago
      The British control of Ireland was more 'occupation' than 'colonisation'.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Is there a big difference? In general I'd say colonization is more genocidy, but so was the occupation of Ireland. They even setup plantations, etc.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Northern Ireland _is_ an > example of freedom through > bloodshed ... > the UK conceded to give them > genuine choice This is non-historic. Northern Ireland resisted unification with Ireland, opting out of home rule, given the choice. 35% of the population were Catholic only, and its not unreasonable to simplify to say that the rest wanted to remain part of the UK. Were one to hold a refendum today about joining Ireland, you might expect a near-enough split vote. The idea that Great Britain were somehow wedded to the idea of keeping Northern Ireland welded to the rest of it against the will of the people is simply factually incorrect. Until recently there were a lot of armed people on both sides of that question with the majority in NI wanting to stay part of the UK. Britain's treatment of Ireland was a car crash over the previous few centuries, but the narrative that it was resisting the popular will of the people by keeping it in the UK is simply wrong.
dboreham 10y ago
Scotland always was a separate country though, since 1314 or so. There was a referendum in the 70's fwiw (also lost).
- Leynos 10y ago
  The referendum in 1979 was over devolution, not independence. There was a narrow majority in favour, but an additional condition was attached that more than 40% of the electorate must have voted "yes", so the result was discarded. A subsequent referendum on devolution in 1997 yielded a "yes" majority, hence Scotland now having its own parliament.
anigbrowl 10y ago
The positive examples you cite are very recent though, and historically unusual. As another poster commented, Northern Ire;and's status is the culmination of a long and bloody insurgency or fight for freedom, depending on which side you support. You could argue that it took 25 years of guerrilla war there before the idea of holding a plebiscite on the province's future was taken seriously.

finid 10y ago

Don't you just feel for Ukraine. But the Ukrainian govt has itself to blame, for being used as a pawn. Now Ukranians can only look wistfully in the direction of Crimea

brandmeyer 10y ago

Its not just ethnic minorities, either. I've been thinking that a possible solution to the rural/urban cultural divide in the US would be to allow the secession of some metro areas from their parent states, forming new city-states in the process.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Isn't Hong Kong a sort of semi-precedent? As I understand it, it never seceded from China, but was a semi-independent economic experiment.
- empath75 10y ago
  It was a British colony.
- geowwy 10y ago
  Not exactly. The British Empire coerced China into leasing them Hong Kong for 100 years. After the 100 year lease was up China agreed to keep Hong Kong as a semi-independent "special administrative region". The other special administrative region is Macau, and China has proposed that Taiwan become a special administrative region too.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > China has proposed that Taiwan become a special administrative region too. Hah!
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      This is no laughing matter. There are few areas of potential conflict where both sides populations believe their side is 100% right. We are one stupid politician away from a world war fought over the issue of Taiwan.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Like everything in history it is a bit more complex than this. Parts of of Hong Kong were on perpetual leases while the New Territories were on 99 year lease [1]. In the end it all came down to pure politics and China was adimant that Hong Kong was to be returned in full. The UK was in no position to disagree. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over...

BurningFrog 10y ago

Norway itself seceded from the union with Sweden in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_betwe...

qw 10y ago
The difference is that Norway was always a separate country. It shared the same king as Denmark and later Sweden, but it was not considered part of the King's home country.

ende 10y ago

International relations can largely be described as honor among thieves.