Business & Finance0 min ago
Why Is It Okay For Some Countries To Gain Independance But Not Others?
47 Answers
http://
Isn't it strange that the whole of the Western world rejoiced when certain countries broke away to form independent countries, ie the Eastern European countries, Yugoslavia etc etc. Yet when Scotland wishes to break away from the UK all hell is let loose, why?
Isn't it strange that the whole of the Western world rejoiced when certain countries broke away to form independent countries, ie the Eastern European countries, Yugoslavia etc etc. Yet when Scotland wishes to break away from the UK all hell is let loose, why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG
Further to Hopkirk's assertion:
The Yugoslav Wars were ethnic conflicts fought from 1991 to 2001 on the territory of former Yugoslavia. The wars accompanied the breakup of the country, where its constituent republics declared independence, but the issues of ethnic minorities in the new countries (chiefly Serbs in central parts and Albanians in the southeast) were left unresolved after those republics were recognized internationally. The wars are generally considered to be a series of largely separate but related military conflicts occurring and affecting most of the former Yugoslav republics.
(from Wikipedia)
Further to Hopkirk's assertion:
The Yugoslav Wars were ethnic conflicts fought from 1991 to 2001 on the territory of former Yugoslavia. The wars accompanied the breakup of the country, where its constituent republics declared independence, but the issues of ethnic minorities in the new countries (chiefly Serbs in central parts and Albanians in the southeast) were left unresolved after those republics were recognized internationally. The wars are generally considered to be a series of largely separate but related military conflicts occurring and affecting most of the former Yugoslav republics.
(from Wikipedia)
"I don't think they will let it rest." Why ever would they 'let it rest'? The SNP is the clear majority party in the Scottish parliament and independence has been from the start a key element of their manifestoes. If a 'No' vote prevails tomorrow, then clearly they will not abandon that dream. Do the Tories or Labour abandon their key policies on any occasion when they lose a vote? Of course they don't; they keep on coming back and asking the electorate YET AGAIN for their support. Accordingly, expect the SNP to act in exactly the same way, if the vote necessitates that!
I don't really understand your question, Sp. For what conceivable reason would the SNP be unable to continue campaigning for independence, simply because it lost the current referendum vote...if that's what happens?
As I suggested in my contribution above yours, I know of no political organisation that simply 'gives up' if they fail at one attempt. The story of independence around the world surely provides ample evidence of just that.
As I suggested in my contribution above yours, I know of no political organisation that simply 'gives up' if they fail at one attempt. The story of independence around the world surely provides ample evidence of just that.
"they can choose to be a nation or a region. "
as long as the UK as is stays in the EUSSR thats all they will be just a region of the EUSSR empire ruled by governed, by and taxed by etc.
If they breakaway from the UK then they have a choice of who they want to govern them.
They can only be a nation if they break from the UK and stay out of the EUSSR.
Apart from reasons like Spain and France vetoing their membership the EUSSR will take anybody if it thinks it can bleed them dry for its own purposes, so apart from some sabre rattling and going through the motions they will swallow up Scotland.... when not if .
so when they do go back in....then theyre back to square one, they will not be an independent self determining and self governing nation (something the EUSSR abhors above all else), just another region to supply whatever the EUSSR can drain out of them.
as long as the UK as is stays in the EUSSR thats all they will be just a region of the EUSSR empire ruled by governed, by and taxed by etc.
If they breakaway from the UK then they have a choice of who they want to govern them.
They can only be a nation if they break from the UK and stay out of the EUSSR.
Apart from reasons like Spain and France vetoing their membership the EUSSR will take anybody if it thinks it can bleed them dry for its own purposes, so apart from some sabre rattling and going through the motions they will swallow up Scotland.... when not if .
so when they do go back in....then theyre back to square one, they will not be an independent self determining and self governing nation (something the EUSSR abhors above all else), just another region to supply whatever the EUSSR can drain out of them.
"Scotland is a Country to the North of my Country, not part of it, that's why it has a different name!"
Depends on your interpretation of "Country", Baldric. I prefer to use the one used on "Pointless" - an independent nation state as recognised by the UN. On that definition Scotland does not qualify (and neither do England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
As I said in another question, all this nonsense was started by Blair and his ridiculous devolution project. There is no reason on earth why any part of the UK should be treated differently to any other part simply based on geography. But that's what devolution provides. It is a divisive mechanism and was bound to lead to the situation we have today where 8% of the UK's population are being given the opportunity to break away - a privilege never likely to be afforded to anybody else (sorry ron, that's the people's republic of the West Midlands up the swannee). Furthermore, because of the spinelessness of Westminster politicians the Scots are now being offered bags of goodies to stay. The three party leaders may find that their MPs who represent the vast majority of the UK's voters may like an input to that process.
For the last time before the vote, I don't hate any Scottish people but I'd love Scotland to leave the UK. I'd like that to be achieved swiftly and with style with all the assets and debts accumulated by the UK shared fairly. (Apparently Mr Salmond has now said he wants the Scots to share the value of all the government buildings outside Scotland as well as the Channel Tunnel but of course geography gets in the way when it comes to the UK's oil reserves). However I fear the vote will be "No" in the order of around 60:40.
Depends on your interpretation of "Country", Baldric. I prefer to use the one used on "Pointless" - an independent nation state as recognised by the UN. On that definition Scotland does not qualify (and neither do England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
As I said in another question, all this nonsense was started by Blair and his ridiculous devolution project. There is no reason on earth why any part of the UK should be treated differently to any other part simply based on geography. But that's what devolution provides. It is a divisive mechanism and was bound to lead to the situation we have today where 8% of the UK's population are being given the opportunity to break away - a privilege never likely to be afforded to anybody else (sorry ron, that's the people's republic of the West Midlands up the swannee). Furthermore, because of the spinelessness of Westminster politicians the Scots are now being offered bags of goodies to stay. The three party leaders may find that their MPs who represent the vast majority of the UK's voters may like an input to that process.
For the last time before the vote, I don't hate any Scottish people but I'd love Scotland to leave the UK. I'd like that to be achieved swiftly and with style with all the assets and debts accumulated by the UK shared fairly. (Apparently Mr Salmond has now said he wants the Scots to share the value of all the government buildings outside Scotland as well as the Channel Tunnel but of course geography gets in the way when it comes to the UK's oil reserves). However I fear the vote will be "No" in the order of around 60:40.
We were in Scotland last week, and got the impression that far more young people are in the yes camp while a lot of the older ones were fa more cautious. This indicates that if they keep having a referendum every couple of years, they'd get a YES eventually! I know it's not quite the same, but our old county of Caernarfonshire was the last "dry" county. It went to election every now and again, and as the old "chapel" people died off, Caernarfonshire became "wet" in the mid 1970s. For those who don't remember, "dry" meant the pubs were shut on a Sunday.
-- answer removed --
Quizmonster
If the Scottish people vote to stay in the union, and Alex Salmond continues to campaign for independence, surely the easy response is, "Look - you went to a vote and you lost. The Scottish people said 'No', so give it up".
If the vote went the other way, and Scotland gained independence, there would be no way that a second referendum could be mounted by those in favour of the union, because the people have spoken.
I cannot see a situation where we had a referendum every few years...
If the Scottish people vote to stay in the union, and Alex Salmond continues to campaign for independence, surely the easy response is, "Look - you went to a vote and you lost. The Scottish people said 'No', so give it up".
If the vote went the other way, and Scotland gained independence, there would be no way that a second referendum could be mounted by those in favour of the union, because the people have spoken.
I cannot see a situation where we had a referendum every few years...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.