It’s not a fallacy. If we’re trying to assess what a separation might look like for Scotland and the rUK by looking at how it worked in other places, it’s far more instructive to consider places where said separation was peaceful than to consider places where it was not.
The likelihood of a military end to Scottish devolution approaches zero. That is why it needs to be assessed against other peaceful separations.
So what’s the set of peaceful break ups that we are comparing against?
Breakup of Czechoslovakia - I guess that went ok. Does anyone think they’re dramatically better off for it?
Breakup of the Soviet Union - nope, can’t think of any problems there.
The separation of Anguilla from St Kitts and Nevis - as far as I can tell, that seems to have gone swimmingly. I’m sure it will be an excellent model for a breakup of the UK.
That’s all of the non violent breakups I can think of since the middle I the last century or so.
In none of the cases you mention is there a reunification movement on any side, with the possible exception of irridentist Russian supremacists who want to recreate something like the Soviet Union. Presumably, therefore, all the parties affected (other than the irridentist Russian supremacists) feel that they are better off having separated. Are you of the view that they are wrong?
Nope. I’m just saying that the precedents for the peaceful dissolution of two such large and deeply entwined countries are mighty thin on the ground. (I realized that I actually forgot another - South Africa and Namibia.) The vast majority of country separations are violent. Saying that the divorce of Scotland from the UK will be fine because there’s all this history of successful, peaceful partings seems like a stretch. Unless there’s something I’m missing?
Sorry for the double post…
I was originally responding to this (and being cheeky):
But the fact is that I can only think of four modern, relatively non-violent separations of countries (Soviet Union breakup, Czechoslovakia breakup, South Africa/Namibia, and Anguilla from St Kitts and Nevis). None of them were of such deeply entwined countries as UK and Scotland, three out of four were boring because they were fairly well planned and within those three I don’t know of any real evidence that they were particularly beneficial, and one (feel free to guess) was neither boring nor clearly beneficial to all parties (some, certainly).
You’re just missing the obvious fact that you can’t compare peaceful separations with warlike ones. It may or may not be valid to compare Scotland and the rUK to the Czech Republic and Slovakia, I don’t know. But it’s obviously absurd to invoke Yugoslavia or Cyprus.
It didn’t really go ok though. Following the 1992 breakup, it was run by a semi-authoritarian who used state media for propaganda purposes, shady privatization of public companies and rampant corruption. The EU and NATO weren’t exactly thrilled. It was only after he stepped down in 1998 that Slovakia’s prospects improved.
Scotland has a longer tradition of democratic norms to work off of though. I’m just correcting the record.
ETA: I suppose Singapore’s breakup with Malaysia might be invoked. But those weren’t democracies at the time AFAIK.
Negotiation. No democratic state could insist on having a base in another without permission from that state. That is what independence is about.
Decolonisation in the twentieth century- UK, Portugal, France. Then Greenland, Iceland, Baltic States, Dissolution of the Russian Empire (Warsaw Pact countries).
Well, not all of the incidents you cite were entirely peaceful, Pjen.
But it’s a red herring. We know that peaceful secession is possible, and that there are real-world examples. And it is plain that, if Scotland votes to leave the UK (I am still doubtful that it will), it will leave, and it will leave peacefully. Yes, there will be some tough negotiating along the way, and a few unpleasant outcomes for one or other or (probably) both states, but armed conflict between them as part of the separation process is absolutely inconceivable, and those who suggest it could happen are engaged in particularly unconvincing scaremongering.
Yes, yes and cite? Specifically I want an example of a country which was part of a mature democracy that seceded peacefully and continued democratic. Antigua was administered by Saint Kitts: I’m not clear about whether they voted in elections or had representatives in Saint Kitts. Other examples (US et al) involved cases where the newly independent country didn’t have elected representation in the former home country. Yeah, I’m saying colonies don’t count: Scotland isn’t a colony any more than New Jersey is.
I’m just wondering whether Scotland is the first to do this. I’d be surprised if it was frankly: I’m just struggling for a counterexample. That shouldn’t affect a Scot’s vote, but then the OP isn’t about that particular debate.
I agree that the Scottish will win even in the case of a No vote, as they will receive more devolution. I’ll also opine that Scotland has the best brand in the world. Seriously. Scottish whiskey, kilts, Scottish enlightenment, banking, arts, universities: what’s not to like? Methinks they should tip up taxes a notch and devote the proceeds to Scottish Awesome. Any jerk can wave a flag and advocate secession. Punching above your weight and joining cultural distinctiveness with creative and effective governance are the real challenges, the real accomplishments.
The separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905 comes close. Both countries were stable democracies (by the standards of the day) and remained so. However they had always retained their separate parliaments, so the case doesn’t quite fit your criteria.
Singapore separated peacefully from Malaysia in 1965. Despite what you say in post #868, both countries had democratic forms of government at the time. However I rather doubt whether they could have been classed as “mature” democracies.
Perhaps the strongest example is the Czech/Slovak velvet divorce. While not mature democracies, Czechoslovakia had been democratic since 1989/90, and of course had been a democracy between the wars, and so had a democratic heritage to build on. Both countries were represented in the federal parliament.
Singapore didn’t vote to separate from Malaya, it got thrown out. Singapore’s done well for itself since, but the impetus was civil unrest, as in, people were getting killed.
Things were touchy for a long time afterwards, and the countries are still mildly antagonistic now and then, but economic and social links (most people have relatives on the other side, and Malaysians and Singaporeans tend to do a lot of business with each other) mean that we generally get along.
So the vote is in full swing now.
The first results will be in around 1am and the final result result around 7-8am.
It will be a long night of the soul up in Scotland.
I’m going to go to the pub and pretend it all isn’t happening.
FWIW, the [clear consensus](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php? t=734405&page=2) of the SDMB is that Scotland will go “no”.
Well, yes, but right now Scotland isn’t another state. AFAIK, the referendum is not binding on Westminster, so England Plus can impose conditions on Scotland’s departure from the Union if it wants (and it will have to in any event since as far as I can tell the Edinburgh Agreement does not provide for the specifics of property transfer and such).
UDI is always a possibility if rUK do not honour the Edinburgh Agreement. Result- everything goes to court or external mediators and the economy of both countries tank together. After independence is gained, rUK is served notice on Faslane etc. No one wants a messy divorce.
We normally vote at 8.30am. It was busier today than I have seen it for local or national elections with the polling place having four sections rather than two and ten people there rather than seven. Our votes cast for Scotland to be an Independent country.
That’s not a terribly convincing call for a “Yes” vote. “It will probably not be a huge disaster” isn’t a convincing case to break up a great country.
I mean, you’ve spent a hundred posts claiming every argument against independence is a “unionist scaremongering” or some such thing. What’s the argument FOR, though?