Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First Quebec, then Texas, now Catalonia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20482719

Seems that a lot of people that want to be their own country are taking advantage of the world's current financial clusterfeth.

*Scotland

Dunno about Quebec or Scotland but Texan secessionist sentiment has nothing to do with economics w. the exception of the "Texas has a larger economy than Australia therefore it is an economically viable independent nation" argument.)

Quebec's less opportunism, more an ongoing discussion.

Catalonia have wanted to be independent for ages haven't they?

Bad idea if you ask me, means Barcelona might get kicked out of La Liga

 rodgers37 wrote:
Catalonia have wanted to be independent for ages haven't they?

At least since Franco tortured and killed their prime minister. Possibly long before that, Catalonia was french until the 13th century.

So, to correct OP's statement, it's

Scotland (First Independance War, 1296)
Quebec (The Patriot's Rebellion, 1837-38)
Texas (Civil War, 1861)
Catalonia (beginning of last century at the least, if the Anarchists and Communists can be linked to the secessionist mouvement. If not, since Franco's anti-catalan policies in the 50s)

Seriously, Franco, what a fething douche.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 rodgers37 wrote:
Catalonia have wanted to be independent for ages haven't they?

At least since Franco tortured and killed their prime minister. Possibly long before that, Catalonia was french until the 13th century.

So, to correct OP's statement, it's

Scotland (First Independance War, 1296)
Quebec (The Patriot's Rebellion, 1837-38)
Texas (Civil War, 1861)
Catalonia (beginning of last century at the least, if the Anarchists and Communists can be linked to the secessionist mouvement. If not, since Franco's anti-catalan policies in the 50s)

Seriously, Franco, what a fething douche.

Actually...

Scotland (First Independance War, 1296)
Catalonia (War of the Spanish Succession, 1700)
Quebec (The Patriot's Rebellion, 1837-38)
Texas (Civil War, 1861)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 rodgers37 wrote:
Catalonia have wanted to be independent for ages haven't they?

At least since Franco tortured and killed their prime minister. Possibly long before that, Catalonia was french until the 13th century.

So, to correct OP's statement, it's

Scotland (First Independance War, 1296)
Quebec (The Patriot's Rebellion, 1837-38)
Texas (Civil War, 1861)
Catalonia (beginning of last century at the least, if the Anarchists and Communists can be linked to the secessionist mouvement. If not, since Franco's anti-catalan policies in the 50s)

Seriously, Franco, what a fething douche.

Actually...

Scotland (First Independance War, 1296)
Catalonia (War of the Spanish Succession, 1700)
Quebec (The Patriot's Rebellion, 1837-38)
Texas (Civil War, 1861)

I thought they simply disagreed over who should get the throne, Bourbon or Habsburg, not over independance? I guess being on the losing side couldn't have helped...

There have been Catalonian independence movements at least as far back as the end of the 18th century.

There's been more talk here in Western Australia about the issue too. And not just the joking kind my Dad likes to make, but of the serious 'well why shouldn't we secede?' kind.

It isn't motivated by the financial crisis but by the opposite, WA is making money hand over fist through the mining boom, and while its slowed with the drop in commodities prices its still going strong. A lot of that money is going East to the Federal government and not coming back. More and more people are coming here chasing high paying jobs and the state government isn't getting the funding it needs to provide for that expansion.

Secession is still silly, of course, two million people and some mines don't make for a viable country.

Secession Fever is simply an over reaction.

If you want to change something, engage the political process and encourage federal principles.

 whembly wrote:
Secession Fever is simply an over reaction.

If you want to change something, engage the political process and encourage federal principles.

Federalism doesn't offer much solace when it's on international issues that you disagree. Or when there's constant opposition on any of the federal legislative powers.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Federalism doesn't offer much solace when it's on international issues that you disagree. Or when there's constant opposition on any of the federal legislative powers.

It doesn't deal well with financial issues either. The larger the government, the more inertia the system has. It's one of the reasons that governments struggle to deal with the advance of technology, for example.


Edit: Oh, and sebster, next time you want to start a thread addressing me, try telling me about it so I can defend my position before it gets locked. You guys clearly had no idea what my basis was. (Which was, you know, the actual testimony of people involved). Oh, and I read 'What We Knew' and found it to be, at best, an interesting read, but not actual proof that all of Germany was in on it. I liked the one that was an anti-German diatribe that they all knew about everything to do wit the holocaust, because the interviewee was bullied in elementary school for being jewish, before his family left Germany in the 1930's.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Secession Fever is simply an over reaction.

If you want to change something, engage the political process and encourage federal principles.

Federalism doesn't offer much solace when it's on international issues that you disagree. Or when there's constant opposition on any of the federal legislative powers.

I mean federalist principles... but your point still stands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Federalism doesn't offer much solace when it's on international issues that you disagree. Or when there's constant opposition on any of the federal legislative powers.

It doesn't deal well with financial issues either. The larger the government, the more inertia the system has. It's one of the reasons that governments struggle to deal with the advance of technology, for example.

So... advocating more states rights eh?

 whembly wrote:

So... advocating more states rights eh?

No, just the ones outlined in the Constitution. Particularly Article X. The Federal government has been quite aggressive about expanding it's power for a while now, and it's reaching the point it's exceeding what it can practically wield.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... advocating more states rights eh?

No, just the ones outlined in the Constitution. Particularly Article X. The Federal government has been quite aggressive about expanding it's power for a while now, and it's reaching the point it's exceeding what it can practically wield.

psst... I agree with ya.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Edit: Oh, and sebster, next time you want to start a thread addressing me, try telling me about it so I can defend my position before it gets locked.

Sorry about that. I assumed you would have seen it. I'll know for next time to contact the people involved.

You guys clearly had no idea what my basis was. (Which was, you know, the actual testimony of people involved). Oh, and I read 'What We Knew' and found it to be, at best, an interesting read, but not actual proof that all of Germany was in on it.

And after all that talk, you claim my position was something as crude as 'all of Germany was in on it'

feth it. Whatever. You can't be bothered, then I won't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Secession Fever is simply an over reaction.

If you want to change something, engage the political process and encourage federal principles.

Agreed. In a lot of cases the solutions to these problems don't require anything like secession (and in many cases it really is about people being noisy about perceived injustices that don't actually exist). It's a heightened political environment, driven largely by the poor economic climate, and that produces 'a damn it all let's just secede' conclusion.

Engagement and reform of the political process is the only meaningful solution. Of course, that's a lot of hard work, and not very gratifying for the most part, and so is only going to be undertaken by people with a genuinely significant grievance.

 sebster wrote:
Engagement and reform of the political process is the only meaningful solution. Of course, that's a lot of hard work, and not very gratifying for the most part, and so is only going to be undertaken by people with a genuinely significant grievance.

Why engage in a political process that you need to share with constituency with which you do not share any (or few) values? When mathematics alone assure that your values will never be the ones that are used to make a decision? Or when (in the case of Catalonia) less than 2 generations ago that same political entity was busy torturing and killing your people?

 sebster wrote:

And after all that talk, you claim my position was something as crude as 'all of Germany was in on it'

No, that was the position of the book that LoH was pushing. I sat down and read it and, while some testimony was interesting, a lot of it was very clearly colored by things that happened afterward, or was from people that were basing their claim that everyone was in on it based on things like the person being bullied at school for being Jewish.

 sebster wrote:

Agreed. In a lot of cases the solutions to these problems don't require anything like secession (and in many cases it really is about people being noisy about perceived injustices that don't actually exist). It's a heightened political environment, driven largely by the poor economic climate, and that produces 'a damn it all let's just secede' conclusion.

Engagement and reform of the political process is the only meaningful solution. Of course, that's a lot of hard work, and not very gratifying for the most part, and so is only going to be undertaken by people with a genuinely significant grievance.

Agreed, however, the odds of reform in many countries, no matter how many voters are engaged in it, is remote. The United States can't even seem to manage election reform, despite both parties promising it since..... 1950, at least. Healthcare reform had been pitched by every president since Roosevelt.

Well everyone in Europe kinda hated the jews during that time period, so even if the german people knew little of what was actually happening they (and the vast majority of Europeans) largely supported the antisemitic views of the nazis

Sigh.

What next? The secession of the Moon from Earth's orbit?

Depressing that the OP connected Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec with...Texas.

Spot the odd one out, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
Well everyone in Europe kinda hated the jews during that time period, so even if the german people knew little of what was actually happening they (and the vast majority of Europeans) largely supported the antisemitic views of the nazis

Citation needed. The UK had a Jewish Prime Minister in the late 19th century, Musslini was famously unracist (until he was bullied into it by the nazis), I'm not aware of any *serious* anti-semitism in the rest of Western Europe.

And the Jews were doing just fine in Poland/the USSR.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Sigh.

What next? The secession of the Moon from Earth's orbit?

The moon can damn well try

I don't even think there is a fever. It's like when Japan was hit by the big earthquake. All of a sudden earthquakes were big news so the media started reporting them and people jumped to the conclusion "there's more earthquakes than ever!" That's of course no true because a simple look at USGS revealed that there was no surge in quake activity or anything out of the ordinary.

When something hits the news it calls people's attention to it in a way that they might normally never pay any mind. Ever since the debate for Scottish independence got reignited more attention has been paid to such things even though there's nothing unusual about a lot of these events or what is unusual is rather minor.

Citation needed. The UK had a Jewish Prime Minister in the late 19th century, Musslini was famously unracist (until he was bullied into it by the nazis), I'm not aware of any *serious* anti-semitism in the rest of Western Europe.

And the Jews were doing just fine in Poland/the USSR.

Its a post-war myth. It's true that anti-semitism was much more common back then but then, so were a lot of things. Like women never leaving the house and Jim Crowe laws

Texas isn't going anywhere. It's a bunch of blow-hards. There are way too many people here from other states that came for work for any such referendum to pass. Also, it's silly to even think about it.

 Testify wrote:
Depressing that the OP connected Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec with...Texas.

Spot the odd one out, eh?

They were all formerly their own countries, and have internal economies large enough to support themselves as independent nations. The general consensus is that both Texas and Quebec are just a bunch of blowhards.

Having gotten into bar brawls with people from just about all of them, Scotland and Texas are both hot on Ireland's heels and have my vote. Though the guy from Quebec started a truly spectacular brawl, he didn't wasn't a good enough fighter to hold his own.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Depressing that the OP connected Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec with...Texas.

Spot the odd one out, eh?

They were all formerly their own countries, and have internal economies large enough to support themselves as independent nations. The general consensus is that both Texas and Quebec are just a bunch of blowhards.

Having gotten into bar brawls with people from just about all of them, Scotland and Texas are both hot on Ireland's heels and have my vote. Though the guy from Quebec started a truly spectacular brawl, he didn't wasn't a good enough fighter to hold his own.

It's only the die-hard PQ's and the very vocal minority of separetists in Quebec really... Any intelligent person would soon realise that Quebec has no way to stand on it's own, considering the province is only kept afloat by the rest of Canada giving them 'have-not' payments.
(not that we Ontarians are any better off financially, but we just blame the elitist leftist blowhards in Toronto for that mess!)

Heck, right now separtisim is at an all time low in Quebec! Something like only around 28%'ish would vote 'Yes' if a referendum was called right now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Depressing that the OP connected Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec with...Texas.

Spot the odd one out, eh?

They were all formerly their own countries, and have internal economies large enough to support themselves as independent nations. The general consensus is that both Texas and Quebec are just a bunch of blowhards.

Having gotten into bar brawls with people from just about all of them, Scotland and Texas are both hot on Ireland's heels and have my vote. Though the guy from Quebec started a truly spectacular brawl, he didn't wasn't a good enough fighter to hold his own.

You can't seriously be saying Texas is comparable to Scotland or Quebec. Texas used to be independant because Yankee settlers flooded across the border and wanted to piss off Mexico. They then applied to join the union.

Scotland was cajoled into the union by England (aided by the financial collapse of Scotland) and has a different language and culture than England. I'm not going to bother charting why Scotland is a real country and Texas is not, it depresses me that you'd need that pointed out.

And the Francophones have never had a choice. But then they're being awkward and French.

 Testify wrote:
Texas used to be independant because Yankee settlers flooded across the border and wanted to piss off Mexico. They then applied to join the union.

That's... and interesting and not exactly accurate view of Texas. Part of the issue in Texas was, amusingly enough, slave ownership, which the Mexican state that Texas was then part of passed an emancipation law slowly phasing slavery out, in 1827. This combined with anglo-american settler frustrations with Mexican rule fueled the war with Mexico. Texas then spent a decade as an Independent state, until a combination of economic issues, which some have suggested may have been deliberately created, and political scandals forced the nationalists out of office. Initially they made an offer to the US, but then lost the following election and Texas withdrew the annexation offer. Tyler tried in 1843, but the treaty fell through in the Senate.

The final offer, which was accepted, was rushed through just about everything before people changed their minds or upcoming elections changed them for them. Only the fact that then President Anson Jones of Texas insisted that they wait for Mexico to respond with an offer of an Independence treaty (which they did) slowed it at all. With the death of pro Annexation vice President Kenneth Anderson days after signing the agreement, the press used this to sway voters in favor of annexation.

 Testify wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Depressing that the OP connected Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec with...Texas.

Spot the odd one out, eh?

They were all formerly their own countries, and have internal economies large enough to support themselves as independent nations. The general consensus is that both Texas and Quebec are just a bunch of blowhards.

Having gotten into bar brawls with people from just about all of them, Scotland and Texas are both hot on Ireland's heels and have my vote. Though the guy from Quebec started a truly spectacular brawl, he didn't wasn't a good enough fighter to hold his own.

You can't seriously be saying Texas is comparable to Scotland or Quebec. Texas used to be independant because Yankee settlers flooded across the border and wanted to piss off Mexico. They then applied to join the union.

Scotland was cajoled into the union by England (aided by the financial collapse of Scotland) and has a different language and culture than England. I'm not going to bother charting why Scotland is a real country and Texas is not, it depresses me that you'd need that pointed out.

And the Francophones have never had a choice. But then they're being awkward and French.

Yes don't compare Texas to Scotland or Quebec. Our economy literally blows them out of the water, as does our population size.

Quebec was never independent, unless you count pre Columbus. I can never figure out British history in regards to Scotland and England so I'll leave off, other than to say there are more people within 40 miles of me than all of Scotland.