You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just keep having a referendum with the same simple question on a regular election day, with the frequency being decided by the the majority on the last vote and new voting population. Can do something similar for Northern Ireland and Wales. It's not like any of the nations joined with England in a referendum.
I'll bite! The Scots first shared THEIR king (James 1 /VI) with the English in 1601. He proposed a full union. This eventually happened a 100 years later when the Scots Government bankrupted themselves in an imperial adventure in Darien and the Act of Union came into being. Bear in mind the Scots were divided into catholics and protestants, lowlanders and highlanders and most often fought themselves rather than the English, but despite hiccups, Scotland flourished in the 18th century and contributed to the enlightenment (David Hume), the Arts (James Boswell, Robert Burns), Science and Engineering (James Watt), and Modern Economic Development (Adam Smith). In the 19th century, Canada was effectively run from the Orkney Islands, and the modern indiustrial city of Glasgow was developed. Scottish soldiers and sailors were prominent in the British Armed Forces and the Empire from the late 18th Century onwards. Dont start me on Wales, and especially Northern Ireland!
Its not all pretty - there was a lot of blood that accompanied the trade and commerce (as with every other state), but the British have been at the forefront of the development of the modern liberal democracy for the last two hundred years. It would be impolite to consider how the United States was formed and expanded. I dont recall the natives being given a referendum. before or after independence!
Actually the secession of the Irish state in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was largely a democratic one - with the election of a nationalist majority( after decades of mismanagement and intermittent rebellion/ terrorism)
The point is though the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish (or about half of those) are not repressed by the British - They ARE the British.
I dont think it is quite that simple. As stated up until 1916, the majority of Irish people were loyal or at least indifferent to the British Crown - Hundreds of Thousands of Irishmen enlisted in the British Army and fought loyally. As stated the subsequent repression ignited a fire, although there was of course a strng sense of national identity and grievannce over the hundred years previously. This was molded by the success and failures of generations of politicians and landowners. Attitudes would be very different in Dublin compared to the West (especially after the famines). History isnt all black and white, but definately British Governance over Ireland had some very dark patches.Sinn Féin was elected, declared Independence, then was banned. And actual guerrilla warfare ensued.
According to my history books and Hollywood they gave as good as they got! You can draw almost anything from History - for example the English (or their antecedents) controlled Edinburgh and the Southern Scotland before the Scots (a small Irish tribe) landed in Scotland. So History can tell you many thingsThe Scots were repressed in the distant past by the English.
It is true that the rebellous highland clans were repressed after 1745, But this was led by the lowland Scots as much as London, and cme after a violent eruption, not to free Scotland, but to replace the king with their own, Bonnie Prince Charlie, so even they recognised the British Crown. It was as much to do with clan and class as race. Some loyal clan leaders did very well out of it and theri descendents have the stately homes and tiles that show itBanning of kilts,bagpipes,and the traditional clan way of life in general.
It would be fairer to say that we pool our wealth and resources, as explained by George Galloway.Now the English subsidize the Scots.
Scottishness (or at least the dress sense and the tartan decoration) is an invention of Sir Walter Scott the novelist and the Victorians.Now, the Queen has her own bagpipers and Prince of Wales wears a kilt.
Thats a hard one. Palestinians still cry for thei land and property, but Israeli jews were often diplaced from around the middle east as well as Europe. I would imagine that most African American politicians would state that such an approach would be counter productive and demeaning.But historical grievances die hard. Many African Americans want compensation for slavery.
Exactly and that is why Scots demonstrated theri pride and self determination by voting to stay in the Union. Rightly they were suspicious of nationalists who wrapped themselves in a flag and whose main argument was that if you did not vote for them you were not a true Scot. They couldnt even name the currency they would adopt.Sometimes a country, not just an ethnicity, wants its own state for its own sake. Pride and self-determination.
Majorities have their own problems. Mob (in the sense of mass of people, not criminal organizations) mentality comes to mind.I found more impressive than anything else (and politics aside) was the simplicity of the vote. One person, one vote, and the majority wins. How refreshing.
Majorities have their own problems. Mob (in the sense of mass of people, not criminal organizations) mentality comes to mind.
Maybe, but I think in a civilized nation where 100's of thousands are voting, things are normalized out, even if there are local mob factions.
The problem is not just faction. There are fevers that grip a nation. The day after 9/11, Bush could've gotten 90% approval to nuke the city of his choice.
If I could make only one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it would be this: no law can be passed without two votes of Congress, separated by at least two years. The first vote defines the bill. The second vote, which crucially cannot occur until after an intervening election, is a simple yes or no: should the bill become law. The bill cannot be altered in any way for the second vote.
An awful lot of bad and divisive law would be stopped this way. Of course, good law would be slowed down as well, but it would eventually get through, and with a lot more durable support than things like ObamaCare or the Patriot Act.
How would such an approach deal with issues that have a timeline of a few months? Just give up on addressing such issues entirely?no law can be passed without two votes of Congress, separated by at least two years. The first vote defines the bill. The second vote, which crucially cannot occur until after an intervening election, is a simple yes or no: should the bill become law. The bill cannot be altered in any way for the second vote.
How would such an approach deal with issues that have a timeline of a few months? Just give up on addressing such issues entirely?
From the passing attention I pay to politics these days, it feels like every event is designed to be an emergency in national politics today. So I think, given current political climate, everything would go through your "emergency" path.There would need to be some parallel mechanism to deal with genuine emergencies.
From the passing attention I pay to politics these days, it feels like every event is designed to be an emergency in national politics today. So I think, given current political climate, everything would go through your "emergency" path.
Yup. And when someone says "hey, what that guy is doing is wrong" a chorus replies "but the other guy did it too." Sigh.
Give it time, we'll all just jump off a bridge I guess.