|
|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
3 days ago
|
|
|
> UK government let Scotland vote, it didn't allow the entire nation of the United Kingdom to vote on it The UK government represents the UK. Everything doesn’t need to be a referendum. > they allowed it because they know it will fail Irrelevant. They allowed it. If the EU agreed to Switzerland voting on Schengen per se, then it would be comparable. > don't think that is/was the only option on the table But it was on the table. That makes it distinct from the other examples. Again, I think you’re muddying very different situations in a way that undermines your own arguments. |
|
|
> Irrelevant. They allowed it.
Respectfully I just don't agree with your framing here. Another wrinkle could be Northern Ireland if we want to go into this further with the UK specifically.
> But it was on the table. That makes it distinct from the other examples.
It was on the table but it seems that it was on the table as a bargaining chip for a different aim which was to scare the EU straight on spending the money necessary to secure Greenland and these arctic routes. While I agree that the situation itself is distinct, that's true of basically all separatists movements, whether that's Scotland, Taiwan, or Catalonia.
Setting aside American "threats", we can look at tools the United States could use, similar to tools the EU can use with respect to Scotland, to achieve a popular vote in favor of secession that would be detrimental to the organizing entity (UK/Denmark). At what point is such a thing hostile, and at what point is it simply a population exercising what we consider to be a fundamental right? Is Spain being undemocratic by not even permitting Catalonia a vote on independence?
How do you feel about the separatists movement in Alberta? Would you fully support that as well if they decide on a referendum in Alberta to leave Canada? What about Quebec? Genuinely curious.