5 ms·

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. Th

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.

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.