Ship of Fools: Breakin' up is hard to do?

Thread: Breakin' up is hard to do? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027349

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

The West has condemned referanda in parts of the Ukraine about joining the Russian Federation, saying they are illegal because such decisions must be made at a national level. But doesn't that mean that minority groups will rarely have the option of breaking away?

Scotland on the other hand has a proposed legal referendum, but the Welsh/Scots/N Irish don't get a say.

What would be sane guidelines for parts of states which want to leave their current sovereignty? What would count as good reasons for allowing/refusing referanda on such matters? Apart, obviously, from protecting the rights of the minorities who don't want to leave.

Could it work the other way? If a referendum were held across the whole of the UK on whether N Ireland short remain part of it, there is a possibility that the majority might say "no" ....

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

If you have a part of a nation that wants to break away then your country is no longer a
country. I write from Canada and every so often the Province of Quebec has politicans who want to split away, oh but keeping Canadianm money, passport etc and yes that sounded stupid the 1st time I heard it .
So I would argue that referdums in Ukraine or Crimea were illegal . Ukraine is a
state seperate from Russia . Now if a Russian speaking minority wants to lobby Kiev for more language .social rights well that ios another kettle of fish.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'm pretty sure the right to self-determination is protected in the UN charter. The only question is how you define the groups or areas to which the right applies. I tend to think that if a group can build enough of an identity to call for independence then generally there is scope for exerting that right. Consequently if, say, Liverpudlians mounted a campaign for independence, and given that there is an area identifiable as Merseyside and such a group as scousers, I would say they would have the right to self-determination. This would be exerted by electing members of the putative Scouse National Party to Liverpool City Council and petitioning Westminster to hold a referendum (which should then be granted). This is pretty much the route taken by Scotland. Crimea, on the other hand, had a referendum imposed by an occupying force, which looks like the diplomatic version of question begging to me.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I thought the main problem with the Ukrainian referendums was that you can't have anything approaching a free and transparent vote when there are armed men and irregulars patrolling the country and shooting at each other.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
This would be exerted by electing members of the putative Scouse National Party to Liverpool City Council and petitioning Westminster to hold a referendum (which should then be granted).

Why would the majority ever accept the right of the minority to secede? The Scouse National Party could only ever be a small group at Westminster.

But suppose vast natural resources were found in the Mersey region. How would a call for independence be treated then? The UK could claim it is part of 'our' natural resources not just 'yours'. Are we not then entitled to a say in whether or not you take the money and run?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Short answer: no. Self-determination is self-determination. Of course, if the newly formed Scouse Republic wants good relations with its neigbour, it will of course agree favourable trading terms for these resources, or face the prospect of tariffs on imports and exports from the remaining UK. Post independence status would be a matter of negotiation and the natural resources o the new state are one bargaining chip in that. Just as Scotland's oil resources will be in the event of a yes vote in September.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
This would be exerted by electing members of the putative Scouse National Party to Liverpool City Council and petitioning Westminster to hold a referendum (which should then be granted).
Why would the majority ever accept the right of the minority to secede? The Scouse National Party could only ever be a small group at Westminster.

But suppose vast natural resources were found in the Mersey region. How would a call for independence be treated then? The UK could claim it is part of 'our' natural resources not just 'yours'. Are we not then entitled to a say in whether or not you take the money and run?

Sweden would be highly grateful for an oil money grant from Norway, given that they are now the world's wealthiest country per capita, and that they used to be in a personal union under Sweden (similar to Scotland) until we let them go peacefully in 1905. Highly grateful because frankly, we don't have a right to it when it's their land or sea.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

The hard part about the Russia/Ukraine issue is that the two were united until 1991 under the old Soviet Union. The dissolution of that union was a dramatic and painful collapse, not a magnanimous recognition of national independence and sovereignty.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

That union is complicated by the fact that Ukraine was a separate republic within the USSR and was a UN member, as was Belarus, and each had a seat in the general assembly.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The West has condemned referanda in parts of the Ukraine about joining the Russian Federation, saying they are illegal because such decisions must be made at a national level.

Aren't there actually two separate issues here?

a. Whether Donetsk has the right to call a referendum on independence on its own, or whether the right to call a referendum rests with Kiev;

b. Whether, in the event of Kiev calling a referendum, the right to vote in the referendum should be limited to inhabitants of Donetsk, or whether all Ukrainians should be allowed to vote.

I'm not sure from the OP which of these you are asking ...

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

b. Whether, in the event of Kiev calling a referendum, the right to vote in the referendum should be limited to inhabitants of Donetsk, or whether all Ukrainians should be allowed to vote.

I'm not sure from the OP which of these you are asking ...

That's' an interesting question when you consider the OP's parallel with the Scottish vote. Why is the population of Scotland allowed to waltz off with a big chunk of the UK, including a lot of valuable hydrocarbons and the balance of power in the UK parliament, without the population of the UK being consulted? If it's OK for the government to decide on behalf of the populations of England, NI and Wales, then why do we need a referendum in Scotland?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
That's' an interesting question when you consider the OP's parallel with the Scottish vote. Why is the population of Scotland allowed to waltz off with a big chunk of the UK, including a lot of valuable hydrocarbons and the balance of power in the UK parliament, without the population of the UK being consulted?

If two people are married, and one of them wants a divorce, modern legal trends do not permit the other partner to say "no".

So if the Crimeans really want to dump Ukraine and run off with Russia, it's not obvious that the rest of the Ukraine should have a say.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

b. Whether, in the event of Kiev calling a referendum, the right to vote in the referendum should be limited to inhabitants of Donetsk, or whether all Ukrainians should be allowed to vote.

I'm not sure from the OP which of these you are asking ...
That's' an interesting question when you consider the OP's parallel with the Scottish vote. Why is the population of Scotland allowed to waltz off with a big chunk of the UK, including a lot of valuable hydrocarbons and the balance of power in the UK parliament, without the population of the UK being consulted? If it's OK for the government to decide on behalf of the populations of England, NI and Wales, then why do we need a referendum in Scotland?

The people of Scotland get to choose who governs them. The people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland gets that same choice. They don't get to impose their choice of government on the others. Put another way: England, Wales and NI could all vote for a party that promised to leave the UK and set up a new state of Noscots and there would be nothing the UK (i.e. Scotland) could justifiably do to stop them. So long as the UK minus Scotland wishes to be the continuer state, they have no say in what Scotland decides.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Why would the majority ever accept the right of the minority to secede?

Why wouldn't they?

quote:
The Scouse National Party could only ever be a small group at Westminster.

Which is as good a reason to secede as I've heard. If they feel their needs aren't being met because they don't have enough votes to influence parliament, then it's perfectly legitimate for them to want to break off into a separate country that they can run the way they want.

quote:
But suppose vast natural resources were found in the Mersey region. How would a call for independence be treated then? The UK could claim it is part of 'our' natural resources not just 'yours'. Are we not then entitled to a say in whether or not you take the money and run?

No. They're Liverpool's resources, not London's or Glasgow's.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

b. Whether, in the event of Kiev calling a referendum, the right to vote in the referendum should be limited to inhabitants of Donetsk, or whether all Ukrainians should be allowed to vote.

I'm not sure from the OP which of these you are asking ...
That's' an interesting question when you consider the OP's parallel with the Scottish vote. Why is the population of Scotland allowed to waltz off with a big chunk of the UK, including a lot of valuable hydrocarbons and the balance of power in the UK parliament, without the population of the UK being consulted? If it's OK for the government to decide on behalf of the populations of England, NI and Wales, then why do we need a referendum in Scotland?
The people of Scotland get to choose who governs them. The people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland gets that same choice. They don't get to impose their choice of government on the others. Put another way: England, Wales and NI could all vote for a party that promised to leave the UK and set up a new state of Noscots and there would be nothing the UK (i.e. Scotland) could justifiably do to stop them. So long as the UK minus Scotland wishes to be the continuer state, they have no say in what Scotland decides.

Not quite as simple as that: a UK minus an independent Scotland would no longer have Scots MPs in the Westminster Parliament and that therefore would change how 'The Rump' is governed too

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0