National independence.

[tovaris]

In the light of current increase in the independence referendums being planed for the near future...
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe that every nation deserves to live in a country of their own? Do you believe that every nation has the right to demand freedom from foreign rule?

I personally believe that every nation should be free and be able to live in their own country with no foreign rule. Every nation has the right to claim their land, but should NOT claim the land of a another nation, ever, and every nation should also be aware that once they live one land and settle elsewhere they no longer have a claim to that land.

Edit:
Ok you brits STOP. This isnt a thread about the scotish independance (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) but about national independance in general, so pleas only mention scotland (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) in relevant terms and do not abuse their referendum (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) to throw around in here to much, use the fact only in relevant terms.

[Danny_boi 16]

In the light of current increase in the independence referendums being planed for the near future...
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe that every nation deserves to live in a country of their own? Do you believe that every nation has the right to demand freedom from foreign rule?

I personally believe that every nation should be free and be able to live in their own country with no foreign rule. Every nation has the right to claim their land, but should NOT claim the land of a another nation, ever, and every nation should also be aware that once they live one land and settle elsewhere they no longer have a claim to that land.

It all depends. If the separatist faction can sustain itself without the host, or if gross violations of human rights have be committed. There must be peace and I believe that the United Nations must handle such thing and maintain peace. However, when it comes to the Scottish referendum I oppose it, but I support the former Biafran movement and country.

[Harry Smith]

In the light of current increase in the independence referendums being planed for the near future...
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe that every nation deserves to live in a country of their own? Do you believe that every nation has the right to demand freedom from foreign rule?

I personally believe that every nation should be free and be able to live in their own country with no foreign rule. Every nation has the right to claim their land, but should NOT claim the land of a another nation, ever, and every nation should also be aware that once they live one land and settle elsewhere they no longer have a claim to that land.

This sounds great in concept but it's impossible to define what is 'there land'. It's just a line on a map drawn 200 years ago.

It's a pretty broad statement to say that every nation has the right to live in a country of their own because that could lead to a country such as Britain being turned into about 45 different countries. We need a strong unified country- not a broken up republic

[tovaris]

This sounds great in concept but it's impossible to define what is 'there land'. It's just a line on a map drawn 200 years ago.

It's a pretty broad statement to say that every nation has the right to live in a country of their own because that could lead to a country such as Britain being turned into about 45 different countries. We need a strong unified country- not a broken up republic

Every nation has the right to clain their land, and they also have a right to federate etc...
And no opresive boot should be aloved to stam out a nations rights.

It all depends. If the separatist faction can sustain itself without the host, or if gross violations of human rights have be committed. There must be peace and I believe that the United Nations must handle such thing and maintain peace. However, when it comes to the Scottish referendum I oppose it, but I support the former Biafran movement and country.

Wer not talking about fractions (whatever that is suposed to mean) but nations, bond by theyr blod, by their ancesters. I dont understand why national independance should threten human rights. Only deniing a nation its rights is a violation.
The UN realy has no buisnis sticking their nose into some nations "fight" for freedom.

[Danny_boi 16]

Every nation has the right to clain their land, and they also have a right to federate etc...
And no opresive boot should be aloved to stam out a nations rights.



Wer not talking about fractions (whatever that is suposed to mean) but nations, bond by theyr blod, by their ancesters. I dont understand why national independance should threten human rights. Only deniing a nation its rights is a violation.
The UN realy has no buisnis sticking their nose into some nations "fight" for freedom.

You cannot talk about national independence without factions. If one country is being oppressed by another country, it has everything to do with Human Rights. If the United Nations doesn't get involved, blood would flow through the streets and demonstrations will become riots. There must be peace in a secession of any nation.

[Harry Smith]

Every nation has the right to clain their land, and they also have a right to federate etc...
And no opresive boot should be aloved to stam out a nations rights..

This sounds great but it's just meaningless rhetoric.It's just you throwing out the same old phrases.

How do you even define a nation?

[tovaris]

You cannot talk about national independence without factions. If one country is being oppressed by another country, it has everything to do with Human Rights. If the United Nations doesn't get involved, blood would flow through the streets and demonstrations will become riots. There must be peace in a secession of any nation.

If human rights are respected in the start than the nation demanding independance should have no probkem, like for example the Catalonians who will be taking a referendum on the mather. But if there is harsh opression and disrispect for human rights in the start you will see blod like ireland and baskia.
But stil the UN in my personal opinion have no buisnis sticking their nose into the mather unles ashed by one of the envolvenčd parties.

This sounds great but it's just meaningless rhetoric.It's just you throwing out the same old phrases.

How do you even define a nation?

It has been sucsesfully put into practice many times.

A nation is a grup of people whos mother toung is the same, who are bound by their heratige, who agree that they are one and the same nation, who are bound by blod ties...etc etc...

[Danny_boi 16]

If human rights are respected in the start than the nation demanding independance should have no probkem, like for example the Catalonians who will be taking a referendum on the mather. But if there is harsh opression and disrispect for human rights in the start you will see blod like ireland and baskia.
But stil the UN in my personal opinion have no buisnis sticking their nose into the mather unles ashed by one of the envolvenčd parties.

The UN must maintain the peace and the social order. If there is no oppression, then I see no purpose is separation.

[tovaris]

The UN must maintain the peace and the social order. If there is no oppression, then I see no purpose is separation.

Because the nation wants to enbarkbon a path of their own.
Wll descus the uns problems some other time.

[Vlerchan]

How do you even define a nation?
A distinct group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture.

John Stuart Mills also defined it as: "A portion of mankind [...] united amongst themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others - which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves, exclusively" though it's rather long-winded.

[Harry Smith]

A distinct group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture.

John Stuart Mills also defined it as: "A portion of mankind [...] united amongst themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others - which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves, exclusively" though it's rather long-winded.

But it's such a loose term- I mean there are areas in England such as Cornwall which would like to class themselves as nation because they use to speak an form of gaelic and they have their own flag. It's just interesting to look at from a geographic point of view

[Vlerchan]

But it's such a loose term- I mean there are areas in England such as Cornwall which would like to class themselves as nation because they use to speak an form of gaelic and they have their own flag.It's late and I'm tired but aren't you effectively agreeing with me here? I said it was common heritage and language and such that would allow a cultural group to class themselves as a nation and you've given an example of such in return. Cornwallians or Cornwallites or whatever they prefer to be called claim the same heritage and traditions and language (?) and were it economically viable could certainly form their own nation-state based on this.

[Marius44]

I believe that countries should be able to exist independently, but it's a different matter with the Scottish Independence Referendum. Scotland isn't being ruled by England, it's sharing in the wealth that GB has. This has drawbacks and benefits but at the same time, Scotland would be a lot worse off independent. I hope that people use their heads, rather than their hearts, when voting next year.

(As a Scot, I'll be voting no.)

[tovaris]

I believe that countries should be able to exist independently, but it's a different matter with the Scottish Independence Referendum. Scotland isn't being ruled by England, it's sharing in the wealth that GB has. This has drawbacks and benefits but at the same time, Scotland would be a lot worse off independent. I hope that people use their heads, rather than their hearts, when voting next year.

(As a Scot, I'll be voting no.)

We are talking about national endependance, that of one nation. You see, for example Russia is an independant country, but consists of many diferent nations.

For scottish endependance go to: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902

[Danny_boi 16]

Again,it all depends. If the separatist faction can sustain itself without the host, or if gross violations of human rights have be committed. There must be peace and I believe that the United Nations must handle such thing and maintain peace. However, when it comes to the Scottish referendum I oppose it, but I support the former Biafran movement and country. If there is no oppression, then I see no logical purpose in separation. A faction can't decide to separate from a nation for no good reason to form a new nation. They have no legal right to do so, it doesn't matter how the people feel unless there is gross negligent to human life. If that is the only reason then it is illogical and the referendum will fail.

[tovaris]

Again,it all depends. If the separatist faction can sustain itself without the host, or if gross violations of human rights have be committed. There must be peace and I believe that the United Nations must handle such thing and maintain peace. However, when it comes to the Scottish referendum I oppose it, but I support the former Biafran movement and country. If there is no oppression, then I see no logical purpose in separation. A faction can't decide to separate from a nation for no good reason to form a new nation. They have no legal right to do so, it doesn't matter how the people feel unless there is gross negligent to human life. If that is the only reason then it is illogical and the referendum will fail.

Did you by any chance yust recicle some of your old posts in this thread and reposte them?

How many times do i have to say this for a discusion onbscottish independance go to: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902, i created it intentionaly to keep side descusions out of way.

We are talking about nations demanding independance not some people forming a made up nation...

[Polansek]

I think that every nation should be able to govern themselves.

[Gigablue]

Ideally, we wouldn't need nations. Humanity is really one people. We are more similar than we are different. We may have different traditions, language, etc. but these are superficial and minor differences. Deep down, we are very similar. We have to same basic desires, hopes, goals, etc. We would be better off uniting instead of dividing.

In the short term, however, I think we will end up with more nations, and I don't really see that as a bad thing. Minorities being oppressed should be able to declare independence to free themselves from oppression. To deny a group of people the right to form a nation is to violate human rights.

I hope that one day, we will realize our similarities and become more united, rather than separated, but in the short term, distinct peoples need to be able to form independent, autonomous nations.

[tovaris]

Ideally, we wouldn't need nations. Humanity is really one people. We are more similar than we are different. We may have different traditions, language, etc. but these are superficial and minor differences. Deep down, we are very similar. We have to same basic desires, hopes, goals, etc. We would be better off uniting instead of dividing.

In the short term, however, I think we will end up with more nations, and I don't really see that as a bad thing. Minorities being oppressed should be able to declare independence to free themselves from oppression. To deny a group of people the right to form a nation is to violate human rights.

I hope that one day, we will realize our similarities and become more united, rather than separated, but in the short term, distinct peoples need to be able to form independent, autonomous nations.

I personaly am of the opinion that we cannonly truly unify once all man are truly free. Only a nation free from foreighn rule canndecide to become a part of something bigger (say... the socialist world republic)

[Gigablue]

I personaly am of the opinion that we cannonly truly unify once all man are truly free. Only a nation free from foreighn rule canndecide to become a part of something bigger (say... the socialist world republic)

I don't think that we will ever actually succeed in unifying everyone. I just think it would be nice. I completely agree that nations should be free from foreign rule and that if they want to unify with other nations, they should make that decision freely.

[Danny_boi 16]

Did you by any chance yust recicle some of your old posts in this thread and reposte them?

How many times do i have to say this for a discusion onbscottish independance go to: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902, i created it intentionaly to keep side descusions out of way.

We are talking about nations demanding independance not some people forming a made up nation...

I did repost my previous ones, because I'm not sure you understood me the first time. I don't care about Scotland. All I'm saying is that there is no reason for nations demanding independence if there is no human rights violation. And independence from what? All nations are already independent.

[tovaris]

All I'm saying is that there is no reason for nations demanding independence if there is no human rights violation.

Because it is THEIR RIGHT. Deniing a nation its independance is in itself a human right wiolation!

All nations are already independent.

You did not just say that... Al nations are independant you say....?!!! Than what about the Bask, the Catalanian, Lužian Serbs, Scots, all the opressed nations in africa.... the list goes on and on...

[Storm'sGame15]

I did repost my previous ones, because I'm not sure you understood me the first time. I don't care about Scotland. All I'm saying is that there is no reason for nations demanding independence if there is no human rights violation. And independence from what? All nations are already independent.

Oh come on, most countries that aren't free have many human rights violations. While your right that there aren't any truly dependent countries one can count islands, Luckily these islands are mostly governed by advanced countries so they are treated with human rights. If we go back to India being a territory of Britain in the mid 1900's we can see they had very little rights. And becoming their own country was the right thing to do.

Because it is THEIR RIGHT. Deniing a nation its independance is in itself a human right wiolation!



You did not just say that... Al nations are independant you say....?!!! Than what about the Bask, the Catalanian, Lužian Serbs, Scots, all the opressed nations in africa.... the list goes on and on...


By definition he is right in that there aren't any dependent nations. Nations being oppressed by other is a different thing though.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[tovaris]

By definition he is right in that there aren't any dependent nations. Nations being oppressed by other is a different thing though.

An independant nation is one that runs itself and therefore has their own country.

(Dont duble post, klik edit nex time and ad the quote to the previous post)

Oh come on, most countries that aren't free have many human rights violations. While your right that there aren't any truly dependent countries one can count islands, Luckily these islands are mostly governed by advanced countries so they are treated with human rights. If we go back to India being a territory of Britain in the mid 1900's we can see they had very little rights. And becoming their own country was the right thing to do.

Dude what are you even talking about here?
Islands? What?
Actuly India was stil a multinational country when gaining their freedom from the Empire.

[Storm'sGame15]

An independant nation is one that runs itself and therefore has their own country.

(Dont duble post, klik edit nex time and ad the quote to the previous post)

Sorry about that, well them how do you explain Hong Kong. They aren't technically free because of British rule but China thinks they belong to them.

[tovaris]

Sorry about that, well them how do you explain Hong Kong. They aren't technically free because of British rule but China thinks they belong to them.

When speakong of Hon Kong you encounter the proble of the question if one can definethe people of what is basicly a cyty terytory as a nation. If this is the case and they are a nation they should demand independance.

[Storm'sGame15]

When speakong of Hon Kong you encounter the proble of the question if one can definethe people of what is basicly a cyty terytory as a nation. If this is the case and they are a nation they should demand independance.

Personally I do think they should demand for independence, however no human rights are being violated (from what I understand). So demanding for independence doesn't have a urgent need, they've been doing just fine for many years now. The only thing I'm not sure is that if they were granted independence would China want to take them over and have war?

[tovaris]

Personally I do think they should demand for independence, however no human rights are being violated (from what I understand). So demanding for independence doesn't have a urgent need, they've been doing just fine for many years now. The only thing I'm not sure is that if they were granted independence would China want to take them over and have war?

Probably not. But this is a desvusion aboit the aspect of nations being independant, wery nice example you made here with honkong but lets not were of topic descusing what might happen...
I stil dont knkw what you ment with the island post.

[Storm'sGame15]

Probably not. But this is a desvusion aboit the aspect of nations being independant, wery nice example you made here with honkong but lets not were of topic descusing what might happen...
I stil dont knkw what you ment with the island post.

Yeah the island idea wasnt a very good one, it just kinda popped in my head and I typed it. I was thinking of St. Maarten which is very Dutch but is not independent but could be if they wanted.

[tovaris]

Yeah the island idea wasnt a very good one, it just kinda popped in my head and I typed it. I was thinking of St. Maarten which is very Dutch but is not independent but could be if they wanted.

The question is are they a nation? We are descusing national independance not colonial independance :)

[Storm'sGame15]

The question is are they a nation? We are descusing national independance not colonial independance :)

We'll then yes then they are a nation. But as to answer the first question posed I do believe all nations should be granted independence. (If the people want it) I'm sure there are cases where they don't want to be independent. Can't think of any right now but I'm sure they're some benefits of not being independent.

[tovaris]

We'll then yes then they are a nation. But as to answer the first question posed I do believe all nations should be granted independence. (If the people want it) I'm sure there are cases where they don't want to be independent. Can't think of any right now but I'm sure they're some benefits of not being independent.

A nation diferent from that of the majorety state? (If you have trable imagining this concept here are some examples of nations living in a state not their own: the Bask, Catalonian, Kazahs, Welsh, Scottish,...)

[Storm'sGame15]

A nation diferent from that of the majorety state? (If you have trable imagining this concept here are some examples of nations living in a state not their own: the Bask, Catalonian, Kazahs, Welsh, Scottish,...)

Ok as for Scotland I think they should become their own nation.

[tovaris]

Ok as for Scotland I think they should become their own nation.

:)
But lets expand a bit from one nation to the world
From what i gather you suport every nations right (which they chose to or not to exercize) to be independant...

[Storm'sGame15]

:)
But lets expand a bit from one nation to the world
From what i gather you suport every nations right (which they chose to or not to exercize) to be independant...

Yes I believe every nation should have the ability to be independent. However I'm not sure if there would be a benefit to this than their the current situation.

[tovaris]

Yes I believe every nation should have the ability to be independent. However I'm not sure if there would be a benefit to this than their the current situation.

It is usualy the case that an independant nation is better of. To descus scottland go to: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902

[Storm'sGame15]

It is usualy the case that an independant nation is better of. To descus scottland go to: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902


Why do you not want to talk about Scotland? It's relative in what were talking about.

[tovaris]

Why do you not want to talk about Scotland? It's relative in what were talking about.

Its particulizing the issue that is why i creaded a separathe thread just for that.
I merly wish to stay on topic.

[Danny_boi 16]

Oh come on, most countries that aren't free have many human rights violations. While your right that there aren't any truly dependent countries one can count islands, Luckily these islands are mostly governed by advanced countries so they are treated with human rights. If we go back to India being a territory of Britain in the mid 1900's we can see they had very little rights. And becoming their own country was the right thing to do.




By definition he is right in that there aren't any dependent nations. Nations being oppressed by other is a different thing though.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

Thank you for proving my point. There is not right to be a country unless of human rights violations. There is neither a moral right or any legal one. Islands are self governed, or can be self governed. No island in the world is being wrongfully occupied.

[tovaris]

There is not right to be a country unless of human rights violations. There is neither a moral right or any legal one. Islands are self governed, or can be self governed.


Every nation has the right to be independant, deniing then this right is in itself a violation.

[Harry Smith]

Every nation has the right to be independant, deniing then this right is in itself a violation.

yes that's been established in law since about 1950, the problem is that that's a just a vague guarantee which doesn't outline any sort of framework

[Miserabilia]

This whole thing depends on the definition of nation; I beleive the techinical definition of a nation is a people living in a border (preferable but not nescecairily a country).
So if a people with their whole own culture and language etc are part of another country, they can (but ONLY if they can support themselves) technicaly split and become a seperate country.
The problem is that this rarely occurs, since usualy when it's a part of the other country, there will be people from the other country living there too, that actually don't want it to split up...
And before you know it, war.

[tovaris]

yes that's been established in law since about 1950, the problem is that that's a just a vague guarantee which doesn't outline any sort of framework

What more do you need here is the border we are a country dont bother us. As simple as that

[Twilly F. Sniper]

They have the right, yes.
But that doesn't mean it's always a GOOD IDEA.
Case in point, Somalia.
They are a relatively poor country (underexaggeration), with issues concerning funds and crime.
(Ever heard of the SOMALIAN PIRATES?)
Yeah, practically thieves in boats with AK-47s.
They gained independence from Britain in 1960.
They would have been much more peaceful under British regulation.

But countries like the USA, it was a great idea. They had a stable plan, and it worked out.

[Harry Smith]

What more do you need here is the border we are a country dont bother us. As simple as that

Because in the cases such as Hawaii, or even in supranations like the EU countries may want to merge into other countries.

[tovaris]

Because in the cases such as Hawaii, or even in supranations like the EU countries may want to merge into other countries.

Fimd me a nation in europe that wants to merge into another country! The bask want their country, the catalanians, bayerns want their own country....
Besides what problem does international cooperation has to do with national independence

They have the right, yes.
But that doesn't mean it's always a GOOD IDEA.
Case in point, Somalia.
They are a relatively poor country (underexaggeration), with issues concerning funds and crime.
(Ever heard of the SOMALIAN PIRATES?)
Yeah, practically thieves in boats with AK-47s.
They gained independence from Britain in 1960.
They would have been much more peaceful under British regulation.

But countries like the USA, it was a great idea. They had a stable plan, and it worked out.

actuly the north of somalia split away from somalia and is doing much better. they got rid of the pirates from their shores and stabilized the situation in the country to the point when money (by the kilogram stil) on the street. But they are unfortunatly not recognized by others.
yeah because the british are So famous for bringing stabilety and pece.

[Harry Smith]

Fimd me a nation in europe that wants to merge into another country! The bask want their country, the catalanians, bayerns want their own country....
Besides what problem does international cooperation has to do with national independence


Ukraine want to join the EU which is pretty much considered a supranation. Scotland voted back in 1978 to keep it's parliament based in Westminster.

Do you have any actual evidence that the bask people want an Independence country, this is the problem with your viewpoint. You've got such a burning hatred for countries such as UK and Spain so you assume that just because one group such as ETA rise up then the whole of the basque region wants to leave.

[Vlerchan]

Because in the cases such as Hawaii, or even in supranations like the EU countries may want to merge into other countries.He's not arguing that all ethno-groups need to or must form their own independent nation-states; he's arguing that ethno-groups should be allowed to form their own independent nation-states if they do so wish (or I think he is).

[...] you assume that just because one group such as ETA rise up then the whole of the basque region wants to leave.Will this do? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/21/pro-independence-basque-elections-spain) As for the Catalan (http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/52-of-catalans-support-independence-from-spain-according-to-a-madrid-based-media)

I presume that matikec means the Bavarians as opposed to the Bayerns. As far as I'm aware the independence movement is popular in Bavaria but a five second Google search didn't find me any polls, unfortunately.

On Somalia: The problem with Africa is that when colonisation and subsequent decolonisation occurred the colonial powers paid no attention to the tribal- or ethno-groups that made up Africa and as such you've nations made up of several of these ethno-groups. Somalia is no exception. What people don't realise is that Britain never gave Somalia back to the Somalians because the people in Somalia don't actually consider themselves Somalian; rather they consider themselves of X tribe and Y tribe. There's issues concerning 'funds and crime' (read: civil war) in Somalia because we now have ethno-group X and Y (and Z and R and T and F) warring for control over the one nation because no heed was paid to Somalia's ethnic make-up originally.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The_armed_faction_of_the_Somali_territory_in_1992.png

The map above displays the number of factions that were warring for control of Somalia before UN intervention in 1992. There's a few, isn't there. In Somalia today it is not so factional having turned into Islamists versus all-others though that's only coming as a result of all-others finding a common enemy and not joint national-unity as it might imply.

(Ever heard of the SOMALIAN PIRATES?)The Somalian issue with pirates came about because the various ethnic groups that make up Somalia weren't given the right to self-determination originally - though the whole brutal military dictatorship did help in pushing events along. When civil war broke out the Somalian navy disbanded and this allowed foreigners to illegally fish in Somalian waters without fear of repercussions, which led to the poor Somalian fishermen finding themselves out of work. These fishermen would go on to become pirates. It's an interesting tale.

[tovaris]

Ukraine want to join the EU which is pretty much considered a supranation. Scotland voted back in 1978 to keep it's parliament based in Westminster.

Do you have any actual evidence that the bask people want an Independence country, this is the problem with your viewpoint. You've got such a burning hatred for countries such as UK and Spain so you assume that just because one group such as ETA rise up then the whole of the basque region wants to leave.

What on earth are you talking about Ukraine, they have their independance... EU is a cluster of nations, we are not yet one nation.

You do realise you are conpletly avoiding the point of the debate here...

whel yes a large majorety of the bask peole want independance, while they will have a referendum in catalonia.
I dont hate Spain and i have even been to the UK...........

He's not arguing that all ethno-groups need to or must form their own independent nation-states; he's arguing that ethno-groups should be allowed to form their own independent nation-states if they do so wish (or I think he is).


exactley



The Somalian issue with pirates came about because the various ethnic groups that make up Somalia weren't given the right to self-determination originally - though the whole brutal military dictatorship did help in pushing events along. When civil war broke out the Somalian navy disbanded and this allowed foreigners to illegally fish in Somalian waters without fear of repercussions, which led to the poor Somalian fishermen finding themselves out of work. These fishermen would go on to become pirates. It's an interesting tale.

exactleay if the nations were to be independant and not forsefuly clump together there would be pece

[Harry Smith]

He's not arguing that all ethno-groups need to or must form their own independent nation-states; he's arguing that ethno-groups should be allowed to form their own independent nation-states if they do so wish (or I think he is).

Will this do? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/21/pro-independence-basque-elections-spain) As for the Catalan (http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/52-of-catalans-support-independence-from-spain-according-to-a-madrid-based-media)

I presume that matikec means the Bavarians as opposed to the Bayerns. As far as I'm aware the independence movement is popular in Bavaria but a five second Google search didn't find me any polls, unfortunately.

On Somalia: The problem with Africa is that when colonisation and subsequent decolonisation occurred the colonial powers paid no attention to the tribal- or ethno-groups that made up Africa and as such you've nations made up of several of these ethno-groups. Somalia is no exception. What people don't realise is that Britain never gave Somalia back to the Somalians because the people in Somalia don't actually consider themselves Somalian; rather they consider themselves of X tribe and Y tribe. There's issues concerning 'funds and crime' (read: civil war) in Somalia because we now have ethno-group X and Y (and Z and R and T and F) warring for control over the one nation because no heed was paid to Somalia's ethnic make-up originally.

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The_armed_faction_of_the_Somali_territory_in_1992.png)

The map above displays the number of factions that were warring for control of Somalia before UN intervention in 1992. There's a few, isn't there. In Somalia today it is not so factional having turned into Islamists versus all-others though that's only coming as a result of all-others finding a common enemy and not joint national-unity as it might imply.

The Somalian issue with pirates came about because the various ethnic groups that make up Somalia weren't given the right to self-determination originally - though the whole brutal military dictatorship did help in pushing events along. When civil war broke out the Somalian navy disbanded and this allowed foreigners to illegally fish in Somalian waters without fear of repercussions, which led to the poor Somalian fishermen finding themselves out of work. These fishermen would go on to become pirates. It's an interesting tale.

Looking at that polling for the Basque region the fact that pro Independence parties are getting elected doesn't show that the whole country wants to be independent- UKIP came second in the EU elections in Britain in 2009 and are predicted to win this year- that doesn't mean the majority of Brits want to leave the EU does it?

52% right? Not taking into account the likely errors allowing for a 3-5% swing either way. That's why I'm not a fan of referendums- it's tyranny of the majority and in that case a majority of 2%

I fully support the notion that a country should be allowed to form it's own nation, I'm just not going to spunk some rhetorical phrase that everyone needs to be freed from the evil foreign oppressors. It's important to look at each case on it's own because my Maticeks theory Britain would be split up into about 12 different regions based on national identities.

You do realise you are conpletly avoiding the point of the debate here...

whel yes a large majorety of the bask peole want independance, while they will have a referendum in catalonia.
I dont hate Spain and i have even been to the UK...........



exactley


exactleay if the nations were to be independant and not forsefuly clump together there would be pece

I'm avoiding the point of the debate at all, your the one falling back on rhetoric without any beef. You asked about a nation joining a union with another within Europe and I showed you Ukraine as an example of a country wishing to join a union with another set of countries. The EU hasn't been a cluster of nations since 1992, it holds immense legislative and legal power over the member nations.

I agree with the idea that nations should be allowed to become independent, I strongly disagree with your extremely isolationist view that every single region in the world which has a group asking for independence should get it

[Vlerchan]

that doesn't mean the majority of Brits want to leave the EU does it?Maybe. (http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/poll-shows-brits-vote-exit-eu-news-517867l)

Though I'm not trying to argue that any of these peoples should form their own nation-states; I'm simply providing proof that vast number of individuals in each of these areas want independence.

That's why I'm not a fan of referendums- it's tyranny of the majority and in that case a majority of 2%
I'm curious: if not referendum how else does a nation decide on the issue of succession? It seems the most apt solution to me.

[...] Maticeks theory [...]

...which is:

[...] all ethno-groups should be allowed to form their own independent nation-states if they do so wish [...]exactley

... and sounds awfully similar to:

[...] the notion that a country should be allowed to form it's own nation [and] the idea that nations should be allowed to become independent [...]

... and not (it seems to me):

[...] that every single region in the world which has a group asking for independence should get it [...]

... which implies the elimination of the democratic process that he seems to support - or at least I'm highly doubtful that he'd support undemocratic succession, anyway, it'd go against everything he's arguing.

[tovaris]

I fully support the notion that a country should be allowed to form it's own nation,

A country doesnt form a nation a nation forms a county, you have your logic upside down (or you mistiped i hope it was this)

Looking at that polling for the Basque region the fact that pro Independence parties are getting elected doesn't show that the whole country wants to be independent- UKIP came second in the EU elections in Britain in 2009 and are predicted to win this year- that doesn't mean the majority of Brits want to leave the EU does it?


Yes but it does show the general mood of a majorety of people... and it is a known historyc fact that they (excluding eta) have been striving for independance, the reason they have been pointed out is because hey have been denied the right.



52% right? Not taking into account the likely errors allowing for a 3-5% swing either way. That's why I'm not a fan of referendums- it's tyranny of the majority and in that case a majority of 2%



Whats wrong with referendums? Besides everione knowe that in mostbcountries you need a 2/3 majorety for an independance referendum to be valid



How else can foreighn opresion be labeled rather than evil?
What theory? Noo GB would probably be split into 4 countresbit they all decided for state formation.

Are you so afraid of your country becoming a multiple countries, that you simply opose a nations right for independance?


[QUOTE=Harry Smith;2639145]
I'm avoiding the point of the debate at all, your the one falling back on rhetoric without any beef. You asked about a nation joining a union with another within Europe and I showed you Ukraine as an example of a country wishing to join a union with another set of countries. The EU hasn't been a cluster of nations since 1992, it holds immense legislative and legal power over the member nations.


I still se no problem with a free nation frely deciding to cooperate with a nother...
Many countries are triing to join the eu ukrain not being the only one, there are turkey, montenegro, serbia,...
Just because we cooperate and handel certan mathers with joined forces doesnt mean we are one singe nation, the south slavic tribes and the obrian tribes formed a setteling an military protection packt and that didnt make the two conpletly diferent gruos into one nation...



I agree with the idea that nations should be allowed to become independent, I strongly disagree with your extremely isolationist view that every single region in the world which has a group asking for independence should get it

Again with the mixing of region and nation, those are two separate things, balcans is a region while it contains many nations
and why shoukdnt every nation that wants, DESERVES independance get it?

[Harry Smith]

Maybe. (http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/poll-shows-brits-vote-exit-eu-news-517867l)

Though I'm not trying to argue that any of these peoples should form their own nation-states; I'm simply providing proof that vast number of individuals in each of these areas want independence.


I'm curious: if not referendum how else does a nation decide on the issue of succession? It seems the most apt solution to me.



...which is:



... and sounds awfully similar to:



... and not (it seems to me):



... which implies the elimination of the democratic process that he seems to support - or at least I'm highly doubtful that he'd support undemocratic succession, anyway, it'd go against everything he's arguing.

A country doesnt form a nation a nation forms a county, you have your logic upside down (or you mistiped i hope it was this)



Yes but it does show the general mood of a majorety of people... and it is a known historyc fact that they (excluding eta) have been striving for independance, the reason they have been pointed out is because hey have been denied the right.



Whats wrong with referendums? Besides everione knowe that in mostbcountries you need a 2/3 majorety for an independance referendum to be valid



How else can foreighn opresion be labeled rather than evil?
What theory? Noo GB would probably be split into 4 countresbit they all decided for state formation.

Are you so afraid of your country becoming a multiple countries, that you simply opose a nations right for independance?




I still se no problem with a free nation frely deciding to cooperate with a nother...
Many countries are triing to join the eu ukrain not being the only one, there are turkey, montenegro, serbia,...
Just because we cooperate and handel certan mathers with joined forces doesnt mean we are one singe nation, the south slavic tribes and the obrian tribes formed a setteling an military protection packt and that didnt make the two conpletly diferent gruos into one nation...



Again with the mixing of region and nation, those are two separate things, balcans is a region while it contains many nations
and why shoukdnt every nation that wants, DESERVES independance get it?

I never said I oppose countries succeeding as you claimed above- I never once said that.

What's wrong with referendums?
-tools of dictators and demagogue
-funding bias towards one side
-Badly worded questions
-tryanny of the majority

Say for example with Scotland this year, 5 more people could vote to leave than to stay. This would mean that after a likely recount Scotland would leave the UK on the basis of 5 votes. That's why as you said for major changes there need's to be a 2/3rds majority- something that isn't ensured in the majority of referendums in Britain.

I'm just trying to open up the debate away from hyperbole textbook political science and into actual events and decisions. It's really not as simple as saying all nations should be free for independence if it's favoured by +1 of the population

[tovaris]

I never said I oppose countries succeeding as you claimed above- I never once said that.


Again i feel like i need to remind you that the nation is the one who formes the country not the other way around.

I never said I oppose countries succeeding as you claimed above- I never once said that.

What's wrong with referendums?
-tools of dictators and demagogue
-funding bias towards one side
-Badly worded questions
-tryanny of the majority

Say for example with Scotland this year, 5 more people could vote to leave than to stay. This would mean that after a likely recount Scotland would leave the UK on the basis of 5 votes. That's why as you said for major changes there need's to be a 2/3rds majority- something that isn't ensured in the majority of referendums in Britain.

I'm just trying to open up the debate away from hyperbole textbook political science and into actual events and decisions. It's really not as simple as saying all nations should be free for independence if it's favoured by +1 of the population

I dont know your law but usualy it is required to have a 2/3 majorety in independance referendums or a plebiscit.

[Vlerchan]

What's wrong with referendums?
I was more interested in the alternative to a referendum as opposed to its supposedly inherent flaws - though I've seen you've given supermajority below; that's fine.

-tools of dictators[1] and demagogue[2]
[1]: No.

[2]: You can argue this about every aspect of democracy. It's easily combated through education however; educate the electorate (see below) about the issue and it's unlikely they'll fall prey to demagoguery.

funding bias towards one side
It should be the role of the current government to provide an impartial overview of the referendum; outlining equally the arguments of both sides. It's what happens in Ireland where - as a result of provisions in our constitution - we've had to hold a number of referenda over the last few years; ten over the last ten actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland)

Badly worded questions
This isn't really a criticism. I presume the above suggestion - the provision of an impartial overview - will solve any issue solving the wording, though; not that it's a major fault with referenda.

-tryanny of the majority
Again: You can argue this about every aspect of democracy; it's preferable to the alternatives though: tyranny of the minority and 'stagnation'.

That's why as you said for major changes there need's to be a 2/3rds majority- something that isn't ensured in the majority of referendums in Britain.I'm rather undecided on whether I'd prefer supermajority or normalmajority; personally I'd prefer a dissatisfied minority as opposed to a dissatisfied majority though there's certain issues that affect the minority to such an extent that it seems only rational to adhere to a three-fifths or two-third majority. I don't know, though; I'll have to think about it.

[tovaris]

A map of autonamistic and separatistic movements in Europe:

http://www.modrijan.si/slv/content/download/10952/125480/version/3/file/Avtonomisti%25C4%258Dna%2Bin%2Bseparatisti%25C4%258Dna%2Bgibanja%2Bv%2BEvropi.jp g

[Human]

If a country wants independence then it should be given complete independence.

[Achillea]

I believe that only people from a certain region should have control over that region.
But then, what about immigrants? Should they have the same rights? They don't share anything with these "original" people. If you want to be considered not racist then you would say "Yes!Of course they should!". But look what has happened in Australia, America, Northern Ireland, France etc..? This has led to seriously messed up "nations", going by your general definition.
Should a country be divided because they have different religions, backgrounds, mother tongues? No two neighbouring villages are the same, you could travel from one side of a country to the opposite and find that they dont speak the same language, or even have tge same religion. China, for example has several tongues that are completly different in the same country.
What does it solve in the end? In Ireland, what good would it do by erasing the bold black line dividing N. Ireland from S. Ireland?
What good does it do by creating new black lines on maps? A sense of pride? A sense of worth? A sense that "we are special"? Or does create further friction?
Neighbours are Neighbours and the sooner all countries learn that distancing one from the other won't solve any problems, the sooner we can find peace.
Independance is only required when the rights of a certain people aren't being upheld, or they aren't allowed to express their culture by speaking in their tongue or practicing their religion etc.

[tovaris]

If a country wants independence then it should be given complete independence.

There is a certan diference between a nation and a country, the independant nation being the one forming a country.

[Harry Smith]

There is a certan diference between a nation and a country, the independant nation being the one forming a country.

There both just different words for lines that a man drew on a map 200 years ago when the world was carved up between Royals

[tovaris]

There both just different words for lines that a man drew on a map 200 years ago when the world was carved up between Royals

No a nation is something fundamentaly diferent to a country. The royals cut op half of europe... say the Hapsburgs their COUNTRY contained many NATIONS.

[Vlerchan]

There both just different words for lines that a man drew on a map 200 years ago when the world was carved up between RoyalsNot really:

o A nation is a "large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history." The Irish people are a nation.

o A country is a "region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography." The Republic of Ireland is a country.

Also - to avoid further confusion over terminology:

o A nation-state is a "state [see below] that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation [see above] as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity, while the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic one; the term "nation state" implies that the two coincide geographically."

o A state is an "organized community living under one government." Note: not all states are necessarily nation-states [see above].

I disagree with a fair bit of your analysis but I felt this deserved attention above all:What good does it do by creating new black lines on maps?

It allows a nation of people full autonomy over their governance; the freedom to set policies which are fully in the best interest of the minority nation as opposed having to having the majority nations will imposed on them - which may or may not be positive. Example: had we still been under the direct control of the British in 1939 we would have undoubtedly been pulled into WWII - this definitely would not have been in the best interests of the Irish nation.

Admittedly, Home Rule does allow for a large degree of autonomy without the need to separate entirely the political spheres of the two nations but that's not always enough for some people.

[Harry Smith]

No a nation is something fundamentaly diferent to a country. The royals cut op half of europe... say the Hapsburgs their COUNTRY contained many NATIONS.

You completely missed the point

[tovaris]

You completely missed the point

hhh ok i'll bite...
What point?

[Harry Smith]

hhh ok i'll bite...
What point?

the point that nations/coutries are just complete social constructs. I'd argue that nations don't even exist but in fact there just something that's been forced upon us over the years.

[tovaris]

the point that nations/coutries are just complete social constructs. I'd argue that nations don't even exist but in fact there just something that's been forced upon us over the years.

Are you serious? People are forced into countries! Nations develop naturali by fractorisation of large super nations, that ocures as the resolt of isolation, geografical location, and political borders.

[Harry Smith]

Are you serious? People are forced into countries! Nations develop naturali by fractorisation of large super nations, that ocures as the resolt of isolation, geografical location, and political borders.

Not really, your still looking at it too literally. People aren't forced into countries- there forced onto a certain part of the world which has invisible lines on it.

Nations really don't develop naturally- I'd argue the vast majority of them are forced by brute force and oppression.

[Vlerchan]

Nations and Countries are both social-constructs - correct. We must agree that they exist or they then cease to exist. That's fine.

This isn't:
Nations really don't develop naturally- I'd argue the vast majority of them are forced by brute force and oppression.

Here's an article - quicker:

How Original European Peoples Splintered into Distinct Ethno-Groups (i.e. Nations)

Lingual Differences

Ancient European peoples formed into "ethno groups" or "nations" primarily according to language differences. Most European languages trace their roots back to a common base language, known as Proto-Indo-European. This theoretical language originated in the Ural Mountain region in Russia (the divide between Asia and Europe) around 5000 BC. It spread westward throughout Europe, branching off into descendant languages due to variations which occurred as people became separated by time, space and geographical barriers.

Proto-Indo-European is theoretical in that linguistic experts have been able to find markers in most European languages showing strong evidence of a common base language. The variances in lingual characteristics increased among ancient peoples the farther out they settled from the theoretical epicenter of the Ural Mountains over time.

At the onset of this era of language dissemination, the more mutually intelligible (understood) a tribe's language was with a neighboring tribe, the more likely they were to share a common "national" identity, although ancient peoples during this time did not have the same vision of nationality as we do today.

Variation Over Distance

For example, the Proto-Baltic-Slav people were a single, homogenous nation, with a common language, existing between about 3000 to 1000 BC, and inhabiting the southeastern coastlines of the Baltic Sea. As they naturally sprawled southward, deeper into the agriculturally-productive lands of continental Europe, variations in language developed among this nation of people, even though they were largely contiguous, without a pronounced geographical barrier to naturally divide them into separate nations. By 1000 BC, the language of those to the southern extremities of the area covered by Proto-Baltic-Slav peoples had diverged just enough that it was no longer mutually intelligible with the core group.

This division in language precipitated cultural differences as well, in terms of religious practice, art, etc. As a result, the core group became the Baltic "nation", while the group that had expanded furthest to the south became the "Slav" nation. Even though there was not a distinct geographical barrier that separated the two new nations, just the fact that the languages were now different caused the people in these two successor nations to identify more with those that spoke their same (or close to the same) language, and consequently exhibited similar cultural characteristics. The Baltic people would go on to become ancestors to modern Lithuanians, while the Slavs would sub-divide several more times throughout history, becoming ancestors to modern Russians, Poles, Serbs, Czechs, Ukrainians, etc.

This is similar how other peoples divided into distinct nations during ancient times. In a similar situation, the Finnic people in northern modern Russia migrated west to the eastern edge of the Gulf of Finland. Those that spread north remained part of the Finnic nation, while those that migrated south became a separate Finnic nation, later known as Estonian (forefathers to modern nation of Estonia). In this case, a geographical feature (aside from mere "space/distance") did play a role. The Gulf of Finland served as a barrier between the northern and southern groups. Throughout time, other nations would physically severe the two groups from one another, by conquering the eastern shores of the Gulf of Finland.

Migrations

In other cases, a distinct nation (typically in the form of a federation of loosely-organized tribes that happened to speak the same language and share common cultural traits) might migrate to a new homeland from a far-away place of origin. This could happen for a variety of reasons, including famine or military attacks from a rival group. The Magyars, for example, were migrated south as a group from the Ural Mountains to the northern shores of the Caspian Seas. They would eventually be pushed westward by nomadic Asian barbaric peoples (such as the Huns), ultimately landing in modern Hungary, at which point they would become known as Hungarians, founders of the modern nation of Hungary.

The Etruscans are another group that travelled a great distance to their newfound "homeland". They were a West Asian group (likely originating in modern Turkey) that found there way to the Italian peninsula under unknown circumstances. They would eventually mix with the other diverse groups that found themselves on the peninsula (such as Celts migrating from the north, and Greek colonists from the southern coasts), forming the basis for the "Italian" ethno-group.

After the era of initial migrations, military conflict and expansionist ambitions would begin to play a role. The Roman Empire would absorb the Celts, while the Germanic people would resist, ending the "Celt nation", while cementing the survival of a cohesive "German nation".

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/Europe_Articles/european_ethnogroups.htm

There was nothing unnatural or forced about the formation of ethno-groups or nations - though a degree of coercion or force was definitely present during the formation of countries. These ethno-groups or nations formed originally through similarities in spoken language and then were altered considerably - and naturally - over time through exposure to other ethno-groups or nations.

[tovaris]

Not really, your still looking at it too literally. People aren't forced into countries- there forced onto a certain part of the world which has invisible lines on it.

Nations really don't develop naturally- I'd argue the vast majority of them are forced by brute force and oppression.

Those invisible lines can become prety visible sometimes you know... Let me remind you of berlin...

Neutralety what are you talking about now? Your becoming confusing.

[Danny_boi 16]

Every nation has the right to be independant, deniing then this right is in itself a violation.

If you want to form a nation, you have no right to. Its either you are a child or are feeling a human rights violation that drives you do to so.
I disagree with your contention for it is illogical and has no legal support in international law or the law of any nation on earth.

[tovaris]

If you want to form a nation, you have no right to. Its either you are a child or are feeling a human rights violation that drives you do to so.
I disagree with your contention for it is illogical and has no legal support in international law or the law of any nation on earth.

I am not talking about making up a new nation, i am merly stating that every (existing) nation has the right to independance. And actuly such notions have suport in law.

[Zenos]

In the light of current increase in the independence referendums being planed for the near future...
What is your opinion on this matter? Do you believe that every nation deserves to live in a country of their own?

(One a nation is a country of its own)

Do you believe that every nation has the right to demand freedom from foreign rule?


( two yes every nation has the right to be free of foreign rule and each nation is in fact a soverigen nation)

I personally believe that every nation should be free and be able to live in their own country with no foreign rule. Every nation has the right to claim their land, but should NOT claim the land of a another nation, ever, and every nation should also be aware that once they live one land and settle elsewhere they no longer have a claim to that land.

Edit:
Ok you brits STOP. This isnt a thread about the scotish independance (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) but about national independance in general, so pleas only mention scotland (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) in relevant terms and do not abuse their referendum (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198902) to throw around in here to much, use the fact only in relevant terms.



mmmm

[Zenos]

If you want to form a nation, you have no right to. Its either you are a child or are feeling a human rights violation that drives you do to so.
I disagree with your contention for it is illogical and has no legal support in international law or the law of any nation on earth.


Um actually you can purchase islands or even oil rigs in international waters and form what is known as a micro-nation so yes you do have the right to form your own nation!

[Zenos]

the point that nations/coutries are just complete social constructs. I'd argue that nations don't even exist but in fact there just something that's been forced upon us over the years.

But you also have to take into account even tribes have those invisible lines in the grass that says this is ours!

[tovaris]

mmmm

??


Be cerful not to duble poast

Um actually you can purchase islands or even oil rigs in international waters and form what is known as a micro-nation so yes you do have the right to form your own nation!

That is not a nation bit a country, kee diference people, a nation is a grup of people that share certan natural trates... a nation than formes a country.


Dont duble poast