[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[MisterDee]

Is there any reason the UK needs to remain associated with Scotland, other than "it looks bad if someone leaves"?

Scotland is where the UK's oil industry is located. It's rich, productive and educated. But it's really mostly a matter of prestige.

[Ancient History]

It's a bit like "Why not let Texas secede from the United States?"

[Occluded Sun]

That's the sort of question I would ask without irony. I've always thought that, in the American Civil War, the North had the weaker de facto position - if the various Southern groups hadn't been cheating to manipulate the votes of the new states, they would have been in the right, at least as far as the right to secede went.

My question was a serious one. If a majority of people in Scotland wish to leave that association that is Great Britain, are there any valid reasons for GB to try to force them to remain?

That's an excellent point about the oil.

[Ancient History]

Politically? Well, all power ultimately devolves back to the monarch. The Queen could technically tell Scotland to go pound sand with great fervor.

[Whipstitch]

That's the sort of question I would ask without irony. I've always thought that, in the American Civil War, the North had the weaker de facto position - if the various Southern groups hadn't been cheating to manipulate the votes of the new states, they would have been in the right, at least as far as the right to secede went.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So, uh, this happened.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... ct-n204266

Ukraine's parliament on Tuesday ratified a landmark agreement on political association and trade with the European Union, the rejection of which last November by then President Viktor Yanukovich led to his downfall. The agreement won unanimous support from the 355 deputies who took part in the vote.

Referring to the deaths of anti-government protesters who came out against Yanukovich's rejection of the pact with the EU and of soldiers killed in fighting separatists since, President Petro Poroshenko said: "No nation has ever paid such a high price to become Europeans."

[Occluded Sun]

Why are unanimous votes always so suspicious?

[Koumei]

Referring to the deaths of anti-government protesters who came out against Yanukovich's rejection of the pact with the EU and of soldiers killed in fighting separatists since, President Petro Poroshenko said: "No nation has ever paid such a high price to become Europeans."

Love their bias there. No mention to the deaths of government workers at the hands of rioting protesters, and of separatist soldiers killed in fighting junta soldiers.

As far as the UK goes, I kind of want Scotland to do it but make their own currency for the sake of stability, just so that history can remember Cameron as being the biggest fuck-up Britain has ever made.

[Mistborn]

That's the sort of question I would ask without irony. I've always thought that, in the American Civil War, the North had the weaker de facto position - if the various Southern groups hadn't been cheating to manipulate the votes of the new states, they would have been in the right, at least as far as the right to secede went.

I know we've been over this before but you still haven't got the message so we will do it again.

The South had slaves, and the reason they secede so they could keep their slaves. I know you libertarian types like to compare things you dislike such as taxes, worker protections, or trafic laws to slavery. But you know what actually is slavery? Fucking slavery that's what and it was pretty fucking horrible. In fact it was one of the greatest crimes against humanity of all time, leaving a legacy that continues to hurt real people to this day.

Once again there are words for people who think that the CSA was "in the right" and they are not nice words.

[Koumei]

May as well give the usual update on Ausfailia. Does this qualify as an OSSR?

• Abbott has been getting tarred and feathered in the polls, so he scrambles to grab anything he can to "look strong" or whatever. Thankfully, it hasn't been working - people are smarter than I expected this time. This might give Lago hope for America?
• He's decided we need to go balls-deep into helping smash ISIS, even though "the West fucking around in the Middle-East" is basically what caused ISIS in the first place. And put Saddam Hussein into power. And caused Bin Laden to be a thing. We really should just fuck off for a bit.
• TERRORISM! In line with both of the above, our terror threat level has been raised. It's really nice of the terrorists to phone in and let us know when they're more likely to bomb things. For the record, since 2003, zero Australians were killed by terrorists. Compare to ~400 falling out of bed, hundreds killed by cattle, or thousands killed by domestic violence. Still no idea what people are actually supposed to do in the case of an elevated threat level, other than "clench".
• No, but Scotland can't go and leave the UK! Because... um... reasons! Another reminder that Abbott is actually English.
• On that note, so far one (Labor) MP has had to vacate their seat because they had dual-citizenship, and one (Liberal) MP has had to renounce their German citizenship (in the face of a court case) because they had dual-citizenship. You can't hold dual-citizenship as an MP in Australia. Well, the UK can't actually find the record of renounced citizenship or nullification or whatever for Tony Abbott. They can't find it, as though it hasn't happened. If you ask Australia for records, that's apparently classified (and if you pester them too much in trying to find out, your email account gets hacked). So um, basically we have no reason to believe Abbott has dropped his British citizenship and is allowed to be our PM. The evidence that isn't TOP SEKRIT points to him not being eligible for his position.

And that is another week for the joke country.

[Username17]

Why are unanimous votes always so suspicious?

Unanimous is what the EU parliament calls a super majority vote. There were votes against, which by any sane definition would make it not-unanimous.

Of course, it's all symbolic anyway. Ukraine is now 'associated' with the EU, but nothing actually changes. There are no changes to political institutions, defense obligations, monetary or fiscal policy, border controls, or even trade regulations - just a pinky promise to do some of that stuff in the future. The first thing that happens is that Germany has agreed to start selling their stuff in the Ukraine without having to pay tariffs - starting on January 1st, 2016. You know, unless something comes up in that part of the world to delay or revoke that or the Ukrainian parliament just forgets to lower taxes on German imports.

In the meantime, the EU hasn't pledged to defend Ukrainian borders or allow Ukrainians to live and work in EU countries. All Germany has ever been after is a rules change to make their exports to the Ukraine more competitive with local products. If and when they actually get that, that will be as European as the Ukrainians are allowed to become.

[Aharon]

Unanimous is what the EU parliament calls a super majority vote. There were votes against, which by any sane definition would make it not-unanimous.

Interesting fact, but is the same true for the Ukrainian parliament, which held this vote?

[Blade]

If and when they actually get that, that will be as European as the Ukrainians are allowed to become.

Getting shafted by Germany seems to be a large part of being part of EU, so that's a good start.

[name_here]

Why are unanimous votes always so suspicious?

Seeing as rejecting this deal triggered the revolt that swept the current government into power, it would be kind of strange for current parliament members to vote against it.

[Username17]

Why are unanimous votes always so suspicious?

Seeing as rejecting this deal triggered the revolt that swept the current government into power, it would be kind of strange for current parliament members to vote against it.

Especially when the current government just banned opposition parties and gave itself the power to check all public servants for loyalty to the government.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

Especially when the current government just banned opposition parties and gave itself the power to check all public servants for loyalty to the government.

-Username17

Wait, what?

[Occluded Sun]

The South had slaves, and the reason they secede so they could keep their slaves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VCbvMoCV8

[Username17]

Especially when the current government just banned opposition parties and gave itself the power to check all public servants for loyalty to the government.

-Username17

Wait, what?

Loyalty checks.
Banning opposition political parties.

The Kievan junta government is objectively worse at being a democracy than the Russian puppet faction was accused of being.

-Username17

[Sam]

The South had slaves, and the reason they secede so they could keep their slaves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VCbvMoCV8

Yeah, fuck you.

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right. What
was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
“[Our] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery,
subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal
condition.”
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederates States
of America
Savannah Republican, March 21, 1861

[Occluded Sun]

Although it seems there are people who will argue the matter, Scotland is generally considered to pay more in taxes than it receives in government payouts. And further, it would probably be much better off if it had kept its oil revenues over the past thirty years (and the rest of the UK would be worse off, as it would probably have had serious deficit problems).

So it's not at all clear that Scotland receives any actual benefits from being in the UK.

[DSMatticus]

Surprise: Occluded Sun is a Confederate apologeticist.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
...
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Nobody else's is particularly different. They're all basically the same. They pose the issue in terms of the violation of individual states' rights, but the specific right they are talking about is the right to own another human being (and specifically the right to have the human beings they own returned to them when they escape). There is also a lot of whining about how "we lose elections even after artificially inflating our representation by partially counting slaves. This is unacceptable! Fuck voters, since when do they matter?!" and "people in the north say mean things about us. That is unacceptable! You are not allowed to have opinions about me that I disagree with."

They are very literally self-righteous tantrums by people who are threatened that they may no longer be able to count black people among their property. There is no justification there, only "give me what I want or else!"

[Occluded Sun]

It's possible to approve of the North while abhorring the decision to suspend habeus corpus for the duration of the war. It's also possible to despise the South while thinking that they did have the right to secede from the Union.

Their motivations for doing so are completely irrelevant.

Less brain-damaged teenagers harping about the Civil War, more Scotland.

[Whipstitch]

I was going to leave this at a contemptuous Prince gif, but now you're practically begging for it. There's no obvious legal argument to be made one way or the other about "who is in the right" on secession. It was a super contentious matter on which the constitution remained conspicuously silent following the quiet death suffered by the Articles of Confederation. Breaking up the Union was thus one of those nebulous areas where who is wrong or right in the eyes of history boils down to motive more than anything else. Which is too bad for the Confederacy, because they had some of the most contemptuous reasons imaginable for leaving the Union.

[Occluded Sun]

I said less brain-damaged Civil War harping, less.

It seems the UK has a motive for keeping Scotland in its government besides prestige - money. A very base and corrupt motivation, certainly, but I suspect many of the secessionists have that among their own motives.

Are there any legal grounds (beyond "the monarch has the absolute power and his/her will is law", which is stupid) for denying Scotland the right to leave the United Kingdom?

[DSMatticus]

It's also possible to despise the South while thinking that they did have the right to secede from the Union.

Their motivations for doing so are completely irrelevant.

Their motivations are not irrelevant. The constitution and the surrounding literature in no way state or imply a right to unilateral secession. The only matter on which there is a clear justification is the right to revolt in the face of legitimate grievances. This is exactly why the South's declarations of secession contort themselves into pseudo-logic pretzels trying to condemn "we no longer have a viable path to majority rule" as "tyranny" and repeatedly emphasize the refusal to return fugitive slaves (which they believed was a violation of the provisions of the constitution on which the union was founded) - because they can declare those things to be the hallmarks of oppression (of their institution of slavery) and as such borrow the rhetoric of revolution in the name of secession.

What the list of grievances in question are is incredibly pertinent to whether or not their revolution was justified. And given that their grievances were "we are losing elections and soon might not be able to own people," no. No, those are not legitimate.

So it's not at all clear that Scotland receives any actual benefits from being in the UK.

Well, The Scottish Independence movement is dedicated to
1) Staying on the UK's currency, and
2) Joining the EU, which they probably won't be able to do without adopting the euro.

Either of those outcomes is fucking awful. The first involves renouncing all political representation in the UK government while continuing to use a currency controlled by the UK government. That's fucking insane. The second involves adopting the euro, a currency whose mismanagement is the primary cause of the past half decade of European financial crisis. The EU declared that the only thing they really cared about was bailing out German banks and everyone else could go fuck themselves. Saying you want to sign up for the euro is like saying you miss the good old days of having your ass pounded by Germany. Seriously, why is it that every 30 years or so Germans up and fucking ruin the whole continent?

Are there any legal grounds (beyond "the monarch has the absolute power and his/her will is law", which is stupid) for denying Scotland the right to leave the United Kingdom?

The referendum has no effect whatsoever. It's literally just a Very Official Poll(tm), in which the Scottish government asks its voters if they think Scotland should be an independent country. Even if there were legal grounds for Scotland to secede, this referendum very deliberately does not employ any of them. But the UK government has declared that if the referendum passes they will respect it and the two governments will begin negotiating terms of independence, so whether or not Scotland has legal grounds for a unilateral secession is moot because this is not unilateral.