Yet Another Falklands Flare Up

[Borachio]

If they manage to convince the entire country, then it's basically a referendum where the nation agree, and it's legitimate.

What I meant is that if suddendly Liverpool decide to secede, it will not be regarded as legitimate just because a bunch of people in the area think it is.

Oh I agree the UK authorities would probably declare it to be illegitimate. But you initially seemed to say (in fact I'm sure you did) that it couldn't be done. I rather think it could - certainly it could be attempted. But I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic.

 

[filli_noctus]

Well, I disagree, actually. I think if the vast majority of Liverpudlians desired to be independent, then they should be allowed to be so. Obviously there is a 'common goods' argument - if the area is so small that it would inevitably benefit from the benefits of being in Britain without paying British taxes, then that's different. For example, if I chose to secede on my own, my house would still be lit by British street lamps, still be protected for the most part from crime by the British police, still be protected in times of war by the British armed forces - so the British government would be entitled to say 'hang on, no deal, you pay for this lot like everyone else'.

Similar logic led to the American Revolution.

 

[Benefactor]

My point is that there are no 'British'; otherwise, we end up with the conclusion that in 1776 the people living in British North America were citizens of the British Empire, just as people living in Kent were, and therefore people in Kent should have had a say as to whether America was entitled to declare independence. Clearly, this is ridiculous: the same principle applies transferred to smaller distances.

There are British, I am British.

As far as I know the situation in North American was different because they couldn't take part in British Government but were ruled nominally from London. The Scots and the English are equally British in the eyes of the British Government and have exactly the same rights.
Basically I don't really believe in the right to self determination, at least not for its own sake. If Britain was an oppressive dictatorship and Scotland was a horrible mess where Scots are treated like second class citizens then I'd be all for them striking out on there own. But leaving Britain just because they want to? Not a good enough reason in my opinion.

My opinion would probably be different if it didn't seem to be the case in most 1st world independence movements that the reasons for leaving are mostly nationalistic.

And this is a bit OT .

 

[Akka]

Well, I disagree, actually. I think if the vast majority of Liverpudlians desired to be independent, then they should be allowed to be so. Obviously there is a 'common goods' argument - if the area is so small that it would inevitably benefit from the benefits of being in Britain without paying British taxes, then that's different. For example, if I chose to secede on my own, my house would still be lit by British street lamps, still be protected for the most part from crime by the British police, still be protected in times of war by the British armed forces - so the British government would be entitled to say 'hang on, no deal, you pay for this lot like everyone else'.

So if a bunch of people decide to migrate to a part of the nation, and suddendly declare themselves independant, they can legitimaly claim the land as their own because they have somehow become the majority ?

No, the land was part of the nation, that people suddendly want to change that is not legitimate as long as the majority of the nation also approve.

(of course, again, the real-world complexities make it less clear-cut, but I'm talking about the general principle here)

 

[Flying Pig]

I give you the example of Texas, in which exactly that happened - a province which was 90% American decided that it didn't want to be ruled from Mexico City any more. As a general principle, I see nothing wrong with that; I believe that the Texans had every right to claim independence.

 

[Borachio]

And the Mexicans had every right to try and enforce their legitimate prior claim, didn't they?

By all that's logical. If one then the other.

 

[Akka]

I give you the example of Texas, in which exactly that happened - a province which was 90% American decided that it didn't want to be ruled from Mexico City any more. As a general principle, I see nothing wrong with that; I believe that the Texans had every right to claim independence.

Foreigners come into country A, and once they've accumulated enough numbers, claim they are entitled to break away ?
No, I don't see how it is in any way legitimate, sorry.

 

[ace99]

Texas was never 90% American. At the time it was more like 40% with a good number of Tejanos, illegal immigrants and foreign volunteers.

 

[Flying Pig]

This link here says Americans outnumbered Mexicans by six-to-one in 1835; a book which I have since donated away gave it as ten-to-one. Six-to-one means 85% American, 10:1 means 91%, so I think 40% is a bit low of the mark.

Foreigners come into country A, and once they've accumulated enough numbers, claim they are entitled to break away ?
No, I don't see how it is in any way legitimate, sorry.

Well, I think that's entirely legitimate; I'm inclined to view a country as a collection of individuals rather than a coherent whole. I understand that this is probably a fundamental difference of opinion, though.

And the Mexicans had every right to try and enforce their legitimate prior claim, didn't they?

Those Mexicans already living there had every right to exclude themselves from the new Republic - for example, by forming an enclave and saying that that area would remain part of Mexico - but I don't think, in the presence of overwhelming opinion towards independence, that the Mexican government had a 'right' to keep its territory by force - of course, Mexico was not a democracy at the time, so we can hardly blame it for falling short of the standards demanded of a democracy.

 

[Virote_Considon]

My point is that there are no 'British'; otherwise, we end up with the conclusion that in 1776 the people living in British North America were citizens of the British Empire, just as people living in Kent were, and therefore people in Kent should have had a say as to whether America was entitled to declare independence. Clearly, this is ridiculous: the same principle applies transferred to smaller distances.

You kidding? The exact situation always plays out, but the other way round:
"When coming to this great land of USA#1 in 1668, mah great-great-great-...-grandpa once saw someone he thought looked kinda Scottish, which practically makes me Scottish. And therefore I say my homeland of Scotland needs to be independent!"

 

[Flying Pig]

People think that, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that the American 'Scotsman' should be given a vote in the independence referendum!

 

[Akka]

Well, I think that's entirely legitimate; I'm inclined to view a country as a collection of individuals rather than a coherent whole. I understand that this is probably a fundamental difference of opinion, though.

Basically you're saying that internal invasion is legitimate.

It's like if you accept relatives to sleep in your house, and since now they outnumber you, they are entitled to kick you out.

 

[Flying Pig]

Except you own your house; the government doesn't own the land. I'm not saying that the old inhabitants should be thrown out or expropriated, or that the new goverment shouldn't work for them as its citizens if they still want to live there.

 

[Mad Man]

That doesn't mean you cant make a territory. Also whats the easiest nation to coup?

Throw a dart at Africa and see where it lands.

Awesome. I wanted to start a Micronation but no one would join my struggle

Yeah I suppose that's the problem with micronations, it's always more fun to create than to join. I suppose you'd have to sell it better as something that would be more fun to join.

Sealand?

As hard as it is to believe, some Dutch guy tried it one time and got his butt kicked, so I wouldn't recommend it.

I do hope the Argentines have replaced their Pucarás - we shot those down with our rifles last time!.

Yeah but that was in a bygone era where the British still fielded an effective battle rifle that didn't fall apart when touched, dose duct tape still come standard with your rifles?

The forced movement of a people against their will is a crime against humanity IIRC.

This hasn't stopped them beforehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20801992

however there is this...



Puerto Rico (you know the story)
U.S. Virgin Islands (lots of people)
Guam(inhabited)
American Samoa(inhabited)
Northern Mariana Islands

Midway Islands(naval personal)

You are right about the rest of the islands...they are uninhabited

Baker Island,
Howland Island,
Jarvis Island,
Johnston Atoll,
Kingman Reef,
Bajo Nuevo Bank,
Serranilla Bank,
Navassa Island(Haiti has a contested claim)

To be fair the US tried to get rid of most of them in the eighties when we got rid of the first batch but they all clung on for dear life.

 

[Akka]

Except you own your house; the government doesn't own the land. I'm not saying that the old inhabitants should be thrown out or expropriated, or that the new goverment shouldn't work for them as its citizens if they still want to live there.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the entire concept of "territorial sovereignty" is about a nation (not government, but nation) owning its own land. If you leave a country, you don't get to bring the land you have in it with you.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think you're confusing exactly what it means to 'own' it - each of the members of the nation (which really means 'group of people' in this context; I reject the idea that 'nations' are meaningful constructs independent of perception) owns his own land, and so the nation as a whole owns all of that land. However, each member of the nation still owns his land and can tell any other member to get off it.

It's like saying that Bill owns Number 1, and Ben owns Number 2, so Bill and Ben own numbers 1 and 2. That's correct, but it doesn't imply that Bill has any rights over Number 2.

 

[Akka]

I think you're confusing exactly what it means to 'own' it - each of the members of the nation (which really means 'group of people' in this context; I reject the idea that 'nations' are meaningful constructs independent of perception)

You may reject it, but it still is true.
Nation are entities composed of people, but also of others things : cultural heritage, territory, history, sometimes at least in part ethnicity. As with "the whole is more than the sum of the parts", so a nation or a society are more than "only" the people which compose them.

owns his own land, and so the nation as a whole owns all of that land. However, each member of the nation still owns his land and can tell any other member to get off it.

It's like saying that Bill owns Number 1, and Ben owns Number 2, so Bill and Ben own numbers 1 and 2. That's correct, but it doesn't imply that Bill has any rights over Number 2.

Bill may own Number 1, but he still can't suddendly declare "as I own Number 1, I'll leave Country A and join Country B and Number 1 will now be part of Country B.
Even if someone lives on the border between two countries, he can't decide to redraw the borders according to his wish.
Foreign or nationals can buy land, but they can't decide to change the nationality of the land - a Spanish guy can buy a big garden on the Spain-Portugal frontier, but he can't suddendly decide that this garden is now part of Portugal. Same for a Portuguese, who can buy land in Spain, and it will still be in Spain after that, and he can't claim to annex it to Portugal.

There is basically two different level of ownership, and while you can own the land for your use, you can simply not own the nationality of the land.

 

[Flying Pig]

You may reject it, but it still is true.
Nation are entities composed of people, but also of others things : cultural heritage, territory, history, sometimes at least in part ethnicity. As with "the whole is more than the sum of the parts", so a nation or a society are more than "only" the people which compose them.

Nations remain, though, social constructs. I grew up near the Welsh border - who decides that the inhabitants of a village ten miles east of my house are the same nation as I am, but those ten miles west are not? My accent and dialect are totally different to someone from Yorkshire; how can those differences be insufficient to make them a seperate nation, but the difference between my language and that of Robert Burns is enough to divide us? It all depends on where you draw the line; 'national' groupings have their place, but they are fundamentally artificial, and they remain in my view no more than the sum of their parts.

Foreign or nationals can buy land, but they can't decide to change the nationality of the land - a Spanish guy can buy a big garden on the Spain-Portugal frontier, but he can't suddendly decide that this garden is now part of Portugal. Same for a Portuguese, who can buy land in Spain, and it will still be in Spain after that, and he can't claim to annex it to Portugal.

That's different, because it depends on the 'adopting' country accepting it - I see no reason why he can't offer the land to Portugal.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Foreigners come into country A, and once they've accumulated enough numbers, claim they are entitled to break away ?
No, I don't see how it is in any way legitimate, sorry.

Its only legitimate if you win. Texas and the American Revolution are examples for winning makes treason legal. The Confederacy is the alternative example that losing means you're still illegal.

Nations remain, though, social constructs. I grew up near the Welsh border - who decides that the inhabitants of a village ten miles east of my house are the same nation as I am, but those ten miles west are not? My accent and dialect are totally different to someone from Yorkshire; how can those differences be insufficient to make them a seperate nation, but the difference between my language and that of Robert Burns is enough to divide us? It all depends on where you draw the line; 'national' groupings have their place, but they are fundamentally artificial, and they remain in my view no more than the sum of their parts.

Didn't the Laws in Wales Acts along with the Wales and Berwick Act merge Wales and England in to England? Which is the reason Wales isn't represented on the Union Jack. While the Acts of Union and the Ireland Act of 1949 make England, Scotland, and Norther Ireland sovereign entities within the United Kingdom, Wales as considered a part of England is only sovereign within England, not the United Kingdom

I think a great way to fix the U.K. from Salmond's BS nationalism is to make the House of Lords the upper house where each of the constituent kingdoms had a certain number of seats and the House of Commons stay like it is. At the same time England and Wales need to officially split, making the Welsh parliament less of a joke, and give England their own legislative branch instead of the current arrangement where Parliament serves the UK and England. without separation.

 

[Akka]

Nations remain, though, social constructs. I grew up near the Welsh border - who decides that the inhabitants of a village ten miles east of my house are the same nation as I am, but those ten miles west are not?

History and society, obviously. The same things deciding that the laws of your country stops at the border and if you walk past it and kill someone, you'll be tried in this country and not yours.

That's different, because it depends on the 'adopting' country accepting it - I see no reason why he can't offer the land to Portugal.

You're too smart to seriously pretend that what prevents people from grabbing lands for themselves or another country is only the "other country accepting it".
You perfectly now that it's rather because the home country has a claim on its land that is far stronger than the one of one individual.

Its only legitimate if you win. Texas and the American Revolution are examples for winning makes treason legal. The Confederacy is the alternative example that losing means you're still illegal.

I'm afraid you're mixing "legal" and "legitimate". USA had no legitimacy annexing Texas. It was a pure war of expansion, the settlers being simply the pretext.