The same Act also allowed RC peers to join the House of Lords, for whatever that’s worth.
Why?
If say, the vast majority of people in California wanted to start a new country, why would you think it would be a good idea to stop them?
You’re putting words in someone’s mouth here. There’s difference between:
- I think California’s secession would be a bad idea (and I would vote against it etc)
and
- I would stop the people of California from seceding, even if they really wanted to
pdts
There is definitely an unionist strand in UK rightwing thinking though.
As you may know, Ireland has recently run into some trouble with the Euro. Several conservative commentators somewhat gleefully invited Ireland to rejoin the British pound.
I’d think it’s a good idea to stop them. It’s treason, and that whole thing was settled 150 years ago. California’s part of the US. They’re stuck with us.
Right, so the US is going to exist as it is, or expanded, until the end of the human epoch? I know it’s highly unlikely in the foreseeable future that a state would have a significant secessionist movement, but imagine they had one, a very popular one, with legitimate greviances with your central government. You advocate using force to make them stay Americans? That’s your prerogative I suppose. I suspect you’d get very few English people who would advocate the use of force to keep Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland in the Union if a majority of citizens in each place wanted it and worked for it peacefully.
Anyway, Qin’s analogy doesn’t work that well because the US states don’t have separate, coherent national identities in the way the nations of the United Kingdom do.
Wow, impressive selective vision there. There’s a whole forest of history out there you seem to bs missing.
We did before, remember.
Indeed, that’s why I specified “legitimate grievances” (although I spelled it wrong first time around 
) . Slavery wasn’t one.
If the US were to, God forbid, become a dictatorship, for instance California should instead work to restore constitutional, free government, not secede. Obviously on the other hand states are not different from the component nations of the UK, but at the same time for Britain to remain strong and not finally destroy the hard efforts of centuries, I believe it should remain united.
It’s so refreshing to see you open to the idea that someone might disagree with your standard for decision-making, especially those who are much more directly affected by the situation.
What if efforts to that effect were unfruitful and those who worked to restore the old government ended up being rounded up and killed? I’m obviously talking about an extreme (and unlikely) hypothetical but indulge me, please. At what point would it be acceptable to you for a part of the US to secede from the union?
Is that a typo, because states are emphatically different from the constituent nations of the UK in many ways?
Anyway, I imagine England would remain strong with or without any of the other 3 nations. England has about 50 million people and most of the economic activity of the kingdom, the other three nations combined don’t even make up 10 million people.
If those who tried to restore the old government were killed, wouldn’t the result be the same for secession? And the only reason I see to seceding, as I’ve said, is a Republic of China scenario, to protect the old system.
Yes.
I don’t know. If you secede, the ball enters your own court.
I don’t understand what you mean by protecting the old system. Do you mean every old system?
Not necessarily. For example, in theory the federal government could decide that holding onto some state that wanted to secede against their will wasn’t cost effective. It’s not treason if they say “fine, you can go”, and the legalities barely matter if the Feds and the seceding state have decided to let it happen. Is the UN going to step in and demand that the US fight a civil war? Of course not.
Which was after the Irish Parliament was dissolved/abolished in 1801. Imagine – the Catholic majority in Ireland had had no representation at all in “their” parliament and, I believe, not even any vote.
Look, why is that even an issue? At this point, what is the alternative to Union? Independence for NI? Unification with the Irish Republic? As I understand it (based on previous discussions in this forum), you will find insufficient on-the-ground enthusiasm for either in NI – and zero in the Republic.
Sure, in theory, that could happen. But I’d be opposed to it.
I think the OP is talking about Scottish independence, not Northern Irish.
[shrug] Irish nationalism is scary. Scottish nationalism is silly.