• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scotland Rejects Independence From Britain in a Close Vote

Andalublue said:
That wasn't the case in the UK. No one asked the people of the UK. It was a decision taken purely by politicians, just as no one is asking the people of Spain.
Click to expand...

The big difference is that no one raised constitutional objections in the UK. Constitutional objections have been raised in Spain. If Spain's constitutional court upholds those objections, then the constitution would need to be revised to permit such a vote. Spain's political leaders will heed public sentiment prior to making any such consequential move, as any democratic society should.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah, well maybe the US should just invade Canada and Mexico and take them over......

Same situation here.
Click to expand...

If we had done so 300 years ago, then yeah, it would be the same. Oh, and by the way, we that did already and now parts of those countries are now US states or parts of US states...
 
donsutherland1 said:
The big difference is that no one raised constitutional objections in the UK. Constitutional objections have been raised in Spain. If Spain's constitutional court upholds those objections, then the constitution would need to be revised to permit such a vote. Spain's political leaders will heed public sentiment prior to making any such consequential move, as any democratic society should.
Click to expand...

I guess thats one of the beauties of not having a written constitution as the UK, you can make it up as you go along.

The Catalans get stuck in 'the constitution doesn't allow it' argument made by Madrid against allowing any independence referendum
 
Tonic said:
I guess thats one of the beauties of not having a written constitution as the UK, you can make it up as you go along.

The Catalans get stuck in 'the constitution doesn't allow it' argument made by Madrid against allowing any independence referendum
Click to expand...

Although the UK has no formal constitution, it has a deep body of law.

As secession is not a trivial matter, I don't fault Spain's political leaders for ensuring that constitutional authority exists for such a move. Secession should not be an automatic remedy for light matters. I don't see anything that really rises to the level necessary to suggest that the Catalans cannot reasonably enjoy basic rights and full economic and political participation within Spain.
 
Beaudreaux said:
If we had done so 300 years ago, then yeah, it would be the same. Oh, and by the way, we that did already and now parts of those countries are now US states or parts of US states...
Click to expand...

Yeah well we paid for that land via honest transaction. The United States has NEVER conquered and stole land - the US always paid. It was either done thought payment or democracy...

So don't attempt to portray the US as the Roman Empire or the Ottomans or whatever "empire" suits your argument.
 
Tonic said:
I guess thats one of the beauties of not having a written constitution as the UK, you can make it up as you go along.

The Catalans get stuck in 'the constitution doesn't allow it' argument made by Madrid against allowing any independence referendum
Click to expand...

Please stop with this "you can make it up as you go along" lie. The fact that it gets old is old. There may not be a single document headed "British Constitution" for the simple-minded to refer to, but much of the constitution was put into writing long before the USA was discovered. Combined with hundreds of years of court records, statutes, and parliamentary precedent and convention, the constitution is alive and well. Magna Carta anyone? Try the Declaration of Arbroath from 1320. It's a guide for the later declaration made 600 years later.
 
Andalublue said:
A state that is forcing a region or constituent nation to remain within the state against the wishes of the people of that region is itself inherently unstable. It is being held together through coercion. We have already had the commander of the Guardia Civil (paramilitary police) stating that he believes that if called upon, he would be prepared to use any means necessary to prevent the Catalans holding a referendum.

There is no broad consensus of the appropriate constitutional and legal framework for the future. The Catalans are being forcibly prevented from expressing their democratic will.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you support the right of any minority group anywhere in the world setting up shop within the territory constituted by a lager demographic and then holding a referendum for independence and then expecting the larger demographic going along with such a thing? I thought socialists were supposed to be anti-Nationalistic, what you're talking about is radical nationalism. Furthermore; the Catalans have complete freedom of movement they are not being held within the state against their will they are free to leave the state at any time they choose and move elsewhere within the EU or whatever country that will take them.
 
Last edited:
face said:
So what you're saying is you support the right of any minority group anywhere in the world setting up shop within the territory constituted by a lager demographic and then holding a referendum for independence and then expecting the larger demographic going along with such a thing?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not saying that at all.

I thought socialists were supposed to be anti-Nationalistic, what you're talking about is radical nationalism.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know much about Spanish politics. The radical nationalism resides within the ranks of the PP-led national government, anti-regionalist and Castilian-supremacist. The Catalan independence movement is much more republican in nature than it is nationalist.

Furthermore; the Catalans have complete freedom of movement they are not being held within the state against their will they are free to leave the state at any time they choose and move elsewhere within the EU or whatever country that will take them.
Click to expand...
Sort of voluntary ethnic cleansing?
 
donsutherland1 said:
The big difference is that no one raised constitutional objections in the UK. Constitutional objections have been raised in Spain. If Spain's constitutional court upholds those objections, then the constitution would need to be revised to permit such a vote.
Click to expand...
This is true. It demonstrates that a constitution can't always be seen as a bulwark of democracy. Sometimes having a codified constitution is a block on democracy - eliminating choice and outlawing dissent. It protects the state, it protects itself, it corrals political debate within it's limited scope.

Spain's political leaders will heed public sentiment prior to making any such consequential move, as any democratic society should.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you assume that? A truly democratic state would consider the ongoing sentiments of its electorate and the welfare of all its subjects. Spain, like the vast majority of liberal democratic states, restricts its democratic ambitions rigidly within a four-yearly, elective dictatorship.
 
Andalublue said:
This is true. It demonstrates that a constitution can't always be seen as a bulwark of democracy. Sometimes having a codified constitution is a block on democracy - eliminating choice and outlawing dissent. It protects the state, it protects itself, it corrals political debate within it's limited scope.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any provision in the Spanish constitution that limits the ability of the Catalans for any other people in Spain to participate in the political process. Absent such provisions, I'm not sure it is fair to describe it as a "block on democracy." Democracy and secession referenda are not synonymous.

On what basis do you assume that? A truly democratic state would consider the ongoing sentiments of its electorate and the welfare of all its subjects. Spain, like the vast majority of liberal democratic states, restricts its democratic ambitions rigidly within a four-yearly, elective dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't term regular election cycles a "dictatorship." In the long-term, domestic support is important to sustaining public policy in any democratic society. Without it, new majorities would ultimtely be elected and changes made. Having said that, I see no great clamor in Spain as a whole to overturn the Constitution to incorporate a secession element. We'll see whether such a situation emerges when the Constitutional Court issues its ruling. It probably won't, but we'll see what happens. In the end, whether or not there will be pressure to change the Constitution (assuming the court finds there is no secession authority) will be up to all of Spain's people, as every Spanish citizen has a vested stake in the Constitution. Without doubt, I prefer a united Spain, as the kind of oppressive conditions that would justify secession simply don't exist in today's Spain. Nevertheless, I will respect the choice of Spain's people on that matter.
 
Jerry said:
Scotland is set to become vastly richer over the course of the next few years after scientists have discovered a way to harness the energy of William Wallace violently spinning in his grave.

Pic related:

View attachment 67173236
Click to expand...

Now that was funny.
 
Jerry said:
Scotland is set to become vastly richer over the course of the next few years after scientists have discovered a way to harness the energy of William Wallace violently spinning in his grave.

Pic related:

View attachment 67173236
Click to expand...

Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.

Freedom is taken, never offered by the supposed oppressor. Scotland was free, before during and after their free choice.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
Click to expand...
I don't know that Mel Gibson has offered an opinion on the issue.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I'm not aware of any provision in the Spanish constitution that limits the ability of the Catalans for any other people in Spain to participate in the political process. Absent such provisions, I'm not sure it is fair to describe it as a "block on democracy."
Click to expand...
It declares the 'indissoluble unity' of Spain. There is no get-out, there is no alternative. There is no provision for a constituent region or nation within Spain to secede. If that isn't a block on democracy, what would you call it?

Democracy and secession referenda are not synonymous.
Click to expand...
No, not synonymous, but the prohibition of the latter certainly indicates the absence of the former.

I wouldn't term regular election cycles a "dictatorship." In the long-term, domestic support is important to sustaining public policy in any democratic society. Without it, new majorities would ultimately be elected and changes made.
Click to expand...
'Elective dictatorship' is a pretty widely understood concept that suggests that overall parliamentary majorities can work to the detriment of democratic process and can undermine the functions of constitutional checks and balances, such as the judiciary and regional autonomies. Having a codified constitution can have the effect of safeguarding one branch of government from the over-reach of another, but in the case of the Spanish constitution, it appears to conspire with an authoritarian, Spanish nationalist government to stifle legitimate discussion, debate and decision-making on fundamental constitutional matters?
Having said that, I see no great clamor in Spain as a whole to overturn the Constitution to incorporate a secession element.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you are not paying attention. It is the central demand of the Catalan majority opinion, and the idea of secession has been a topic about which the leaders of Galicia and the Basque country both spoke loudly and publicly this week. So, that's the elected leadership of almost a third of the population of Spain advocating constitutional change, not to mention the minority advocates within other autonomous communities. What level must it reach for this to be a 'clamour'?

We'll see whether such a situation emerges when the Constitutional Court issues its ruling. It probably won't, but we'll see what happens. In the end, whether or not there will be pressure to change the Constitution (assuming the court finds there is no secession authority) will be up to all of Spain's people, as every Spanish citizen has a vested stake in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You think that a simple declaration from the constitutional court will end the matter? It will not. While the majority of Spaniards may well support the constitution as currently contrived, Castilians are the largest ethnic grouping after all, it is a clear failing that the constitution has no ability to deal with opinion, no matter how strong, that denies the 'indissoluble unity' of the state. Spain, like the US, seems incapable of conceiving of secession without considering the use of arms and violent coercion, as the head of the Guardia Civil has already intimated they are preparing to do.

Without doubt, I prefer a united Spain, as the kind of oppressive conditions that would justify secession simply don't exist in today's Spain. Nevertheless, I will respect the choice of Spain's people on that matter.
Click to expand...
With respect Don, what you or I prefer isn't particularly relevant, but then it appears that what the Catalan people prefer isn't relevant either.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I don't know that Mel Gibson has offered an opinion on the issue.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an actor and an historical figure such as William Wallace. I mean, they're so similar. :roll:
 
Manc Skipper said:
Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
Click to expand...

He was born in NY and holds dual Irish and American citizenship. He's not Australian.
 
nota bene said:
Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an actor and an historical figure such as William Wallace. I mean, they're so similar.
Click to expand...
Oh, so Manc Skipper was talking about William Wallis, not Mel Gibson, when he said....
Manc Skipper said:
Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
Click to expand...
...in that case....
Manc Skipper said:
Then don't use his image to promote a silly viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I didn't post an image of William Wallis. I posted a picture of Mel Gibson playing William Wallis in a movie. A movie is like a moving picture and with sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom