Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinceguidry | Hacker News Reader

My understanding is that it's a bit like Texas or California or New York dreaming that they could be their own separate countries. If you live in one of these places it's easy to put on rose colored glasses and dream. But are they really going to put up a border wall, close off economically, form their own military, et al, et al?

Their prosperity is based in large part on integration into the union. They will always be dependent on it in some form, even if they achieved political independence.

Unlike Somaliland, which really has no use for it's neighbor and the realities on the ground reflect that.

View on HN

That's true, but in the modern era the Catalan form of independentism (like the Scottish and Flemish ones) is an aspiration to be an independent country still tightly integrated within the EU as the overarching supra-national framework, so there wouldn't really be a goal to put up border walls or be capable of militarily defending the border, any more than Luxembourg does either of those things. The hope was that as nations integrate closer into the EU, the EU picks up many of the traditional responsibilities of a nation (external border, customs, trade agreements, etc.), making it more viable for regions to detach from countries that themselves partly function as federations (like Spain, the UK, and Belgium) and just become direct members of the top-level federation.

Now it's quite possible that political or procedural reasons (like the ease of vetoing new EU members) mean this is unlikely to happen, but it's generally the envisioned route that independence supporters in these regions have.

> but in the modern era the Catalan form of independentism [...] is an aspiration to be an independent country still tightly integrated within the EU

Yes, but that's why it's dreaming: if Catalonia unilaterally left Spain, Spain would veto the Catalan entry in the EU (and not only Spain, any country with separatism, e.g. France/Corsica). That would force them indeed to put up walls and borders, develop a military, extend all the missing police force, and get systematically the short end of the stick in any trade deal because of its very little leverage.

An unilateral leave of Catalonia from Spain is not far from Brexit in shortsightedness.

> Yes, but that's why it's dreaming: if Catalonia unilaterally left Spain, Spain would veto the Catalan entry in the EU (and not only Spain, any country with separatism, e.g. France/Corsica).

Only out of spite, though. If Catalonia were to be independent, Spain would gain from it joining the EU.

Their commitment to keeping them out of the EU is there to deter them from leaving Spain in the first place, which likely would be bad for Spain.

Spain is working much harder to make a believable deterrent than other "countries with separatism". You don't have France, Denmark or the UK refusing to recognize Kosovo, for example.

> You don't have France, Denmark or the UK refusing to recognize Kosovo, for example.

Of course not. They, the UK in particular, were essential in creating it and actively encouraged it from ceding from Serbia. It's their baby. Why would they not recognise it? There is at least 9 Albanian children from Kosovo and Metohija, southern Serbian province, who have been named "Tonyblair" (no, not misspell). In the honour of Tony Blair. See: http://albanmuja.blogspot.com/2011/11/tonys.html

Spain were also involved, at least in the bombing campaign against Serbia. It's pretty easy for a government to take one point of view when creating a problem and the other when addressing it. You might as well ask why the US would try to undermine the Taliban.

> Only out of spite

Not really, it's basic diplomacy. Spain has interests, investments, and assets in all regions. Catalan nationalists wanted to leave without defining a process of retribution at all, but defining very well that they wanted Catalans to keep Spanish nationality (and related benefits) on top of Catalan one. So they could suck the tit of two states, in an unilateral fashion. It was overall a dick move (Naive? Delusional? Exercise for the reader), and being a grown up you assume the consequences, you aggravate a party then don't complain they get the long end of the stick when they have the upper hand.

It's even dumber than Brexit if you think about it. Do you also think EU stance on Brexit is also "out of spite"?

> Do you also think EU stance on Brexit is also "out of spite"?

The EU is probably better off with the UK in it, which is a difference there. But yes, cutting the UK off from various forms of "soft Brexit" or "a la carte membership" is mostly a tactic to discourage others from leaving rather than strictly about the current deal.

I don't think we disagree.

> The EU is probably better off with the UK in it

Personally I don't agree. I think they are better in the EEA, but not in the EU. The UK has traditionaly blocked, what I believe to be, important matters such as EU defense proposals, laws blocking tax dodging, etc. The UK has always had, what I believe to be, a different agenda to the rest of the Europeans. Keeping the UK out of EU decision making will be beneficial to the rest. Having the UK in the EEA will be beneficial to everybody.

As a determined supporter of Scottish independence, I obviously disagree with that assessment :)

Independence doesn’t mean that countries become completely detached from their neighbours. In Catalonia for example the assumption is that both the new country and the remainder of Spain would remain members of the EU and the associated intergovernmental machinery that brings. That means no border guards or economic walls!

In the Scottish case, for example, it’s worth bearing in mind that as a country it already has an entirely separate government, legal system, healthcare and education systems. Is it such a big leap to imagine that a separate foreign policy and military organisation might be feasible?

> In Catalonia for example the assumption is that both the new country and the remainder of Spain would remain members of the EU and the associated intergovernmental machinery that brings.

That is simply impossible, unless Spain agrees. That means Catalonia would need goodwill from the Spaniards, and that means the separation would have to be amicable.

I don't see the Catalans going that route. No matter that Spain may be "more at fault" (if you lean towards the Catalan side), unless they can defuse the situation completely, they are dreaming a very, very dangerous dream.

I suppose they wouldn't starve, at least. The other European countries (at some point even including Spain) would send food aid. :-)

The Scottish referendum was completely different: Westminster had already agreed to accept the separation. Without enthusiasm, but still.

> That is simply impossible, unless Spain agrees.

So it's not impossible.

> I don't see the Catalans going that route.

It may not start down that route, but realistically there is no other route. It may be that it takes some unrest to force everyone to take negotiations seriously, but there's no realistic prospect of Catalonia forcing independence via civil war or revolution.

In the same sense as it's not impossible that I'm a green-blooded alien that's currently employed in taking over earth, sure.

But what do you think would have happened if Scotland declared independence against the will of the UK government? Unless you were willing to fight for it, I don't see how the outcome would have been different than the Catalan one.

I think you're really underestimating how tenuous the UK's claim on Scotland really is. Frankly, there is no model in which the UK deploys military assets to forcefully retain Scotland. This would almost certainly delegitamise the entire "Great Britain" concept.

Catalonia is different because it, frankly, was never really an independent nation. And while Spain recognizes a certain autonomy it does not grant anything like an independent legal system.

That said the case of Catalonia is interesting. There's nothing quite like it in France. France has never even entertained autonomy, instead emphasizing at every opportunity the "supremacy" of the Parisian government. There's probably a lesson to be learned from Spain and the UK which may have unwittingly given "hope" to these separatist movements.

  I think you're really underestimating how tenuously the UK's claim on Scotland really is.

A Scottish king took over the English throne in 1603. Blame him.

I see no reason that should a sustained majority (so 3 million plus Scots or 4 million plus Catalonians) be in favour of independence, that independence shouldn't happen (In an orderly structured fashion ensuring the rights of citizens on both sides are kept)

That didn't create the UK - it was a personal union, with two independent countries who happened to have the same monarch.

Great Britain as a combined state didn't appear for another century, via the 1707 Act of Union.

Which was agreed by the Scottish parliament. Either way, nobody involved in those decisions is alive now, so it's all ancient history, as is the French invasion of the island in 1066.

I'm not sure how (the op) can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous", and more than "it's claim" on Norfolk, Kent, or Birmingham.

If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Scotland really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Norfolk really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Hull really want to be a separate country, that's fine.

There's no "claim" other than we agree as a democracy to band together to govern us, and protect us, and enable us to live our lives. If that doesn't work out for a given region, that's fine.

* edit -- corrected who it's aimed at

> I'm not sure how you can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous"

I'm not "complaining" anything of the sort. I think you have me mixed up with another commenter.

I don't know much about UK politics, but I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off.

But I agree that in $CURRENT_YEAR military intervention against Scotland would be highly unpopular even in England.

> I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off.

You may be thinking of the UK military being in Northern Ireland to try to keep the peace from a population that were attempting to kill each other in the 70s?

However if you're talking about the 1916-1922 period:

Some people in Dublin declared independence in the "Easter Uprising" (in the middle of a war) over 100 years ago, it was dealt with by the UK military. The second attempt in 1918 was far better -- there was a massive democratic will for independence expressed through the ballot box. The UK government (100 years ago) resisted this independence initially, which was wrong, just as wrong as Spain resiting Catalan independence.

Eventually the UK government relented, and granted independence to Ireland after free and democratic elections in 1921, when 98% of the voters in what's now called "Ireland" voted for the pro-indepedence Sinn Fein (it was unopposed in almost every constituency)

However in the north, many residents did not want to become independent from the UK. The election there returned 67% in favour of the unionist party. As such independence was offered to the entire island, but the north could opt out by having it's parliament ask to (through it's democratically elected parliament). They did - the day after the Irish Free state came into being.

So people who lived in each area got to choose where they wanted to be, and all was well. That's how it should be for Scotland, and Catalonia.

The messy business of unpicking a country began (including a brief 'civil' war), but by 1937 the Irish government in Dublin ratified a constitution. This constitution claimed sovereignty over the north as well, despite the population in the North not wanting that, which wasn't exactly a good way to make friends and influence people.

It was only in 1998 that Dublin agreed to remove this claim from their constitution, and agree that whether the north should be moved from Britain to Ireland was a matter for people who live in the north (and indeed one for those in the south, who would have to agree to take them)

Depends. If independence was declared by less than 20% of the population (that's the number who voted SNP in 2017 UK election, and in 2016 Scottish), then I would expect the UK government to stand up for the 4.5 million others.

However if say 4 million of the 5.5 million that live in Scotland were in favour, I'd expect an amicable separation

Catalonia has a population of 7.5 million. If say 5 million wanted independence, then morally why can't they have it?

In their referendum, only 2 million that wanted it, that's not enough to force the other 5.5 million to leave Spain, but surely it's enough to talk about it seriously though.

> But are they really going to put up a border wall, close off economically, form their own military, et al, et al?

Those states already have borders and militaries. Also, why does independence mean "closing off economically"?

> Their prosperity is based in large part on integration into the union.

Canada's prosperity is more dependent on the US than california, ny or texas is. Are you saying canada is not a country?

Also, you are forgetting that texas used to be a country and tried to become a country during the civil war.

American states are structured as independent nations. They have their borders, flags, histories. They have their own executive ( governor ), legislative branch, militaries ( national guards/etc ), etc.

Perhaps a better argument would be canada's first "nations" or our native american "nations" dreaming of independence.

> why does independence mean "closing off economically"

Because they'd be sitting right in between EU countries. So hard borders all around, no trade deals in place, nothing.

It would be like a no-deal Brexit, but infinitely worse.

> Because they'd be sitting right in between EU countries

EU? The guy was talking about texas, california and ny.

> So hard borders all around, no trade deals in place, nothing.

So they'll just negotiate trade deals?

> It would be like a no-deal Brexit, but infinitely worse.

You gave no reason why it would be worse. Also, post brexit, are you saying britain will never trade with anyone? How did britain trade with anyone before the EU was created?

I was still thinking about Catalonia.

But sure, they can and will negotiate trade deals. Ten years later they might have two or three, with not too important countries.

The US, for example, won't feel a huge need to prioritize a trade deal with Catalonia "right now". That would be on the back burner, and somewhen much later it might be finished and ratified.

Trade deals are infinitely less desirable by ordinary people than full legal integration. Imagine having to go through US-style customs every time you want to fly to California.

If two groups of people can live under the same laws, they usually should. Otherwise the legal and regulatory differences impose a 'tax' on every single transaction. California would gain nothing and instead lose an awful lot if it split from the rest of the US.

The UK is a bit of a special case because it's already done an awful lot of work on political devolution. Devolution is a process, not an event, and there's really no reason to make it an event. Dozens of former British colonies quietly and peacefully devolved from the UK and while it's conceivable that California could do the same, the US was practically engineered in order to make it legally impossible. It would require a constitutional amendment at the very least.

> Imagine having to go through US-style customs every time you want to fly to California.

Customs is far less onerous than security. Passport control is a pain, but that's easily solved. Germany and France have no such borders, yet are independent countries.

An independent Catalan that's signed up to schengen, the single market, the customs union, etc. would be fine, it just devolves some power from Madrid to Barcelona.

Likewise there is no technical reason that an independent California couldn't join a schengen style passport agreement, customs union, and free trade area, with the rest of the US. Canada could join such an agreement too. It's all doable.

I think devolution is going to become easier over time, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "doable" at present.

> Likewise there is no technical reason that an independent California couldn't join a schengen style passport agreement, customs union, and free trade area, with the rest of the US.

Other than the fact that the United States would never create such a thing (or, if it did, would never allow a recently exited US state to join it), specifically to prevent encouraging balkanization of the US.

> California would gain nothing and instead lose an awful lot if it split from the rest of the US.

I'm not saying it's worthwhile, but I don't think California would gain nothing. California is a net payer to the federal government, so there would be some amount of surplus. California would be able to fully legalize marijuana, and have some other autonomy gains. Required duplication of federal efforts would of course reduce some of the surplus. Continued access to water from the Colorado river would be a major issue, I'm sure. California already pays a tax on every transaction, whether that's from California emissions requirements, or California prop 65 warning stickers on everything (I fully expect to see one on drivers licenses at some point).

California ports process a large majority of the west coast shipping [1], and California produces (and imports) a large amount of food for the nation; the US has a lot to lose if it doesn't negotiate a good trade deal. There's certainly some room for port expansion in the Pacific Northwest, as well as diversion to gulf and east coast ports.

[1] http://www.pmanet.org/port-locations-stats

American states are structured as independent nations. They have their borders, flags, histories.

For most of the states, this is not true. California and Texas have brief histories of declaring independence, and the 13 original colonies were more independent before the USA existed, but most states started off as USA-controlled territory before going through the statehood process. The borders were quite often only finalized during the statehood process.

He isn't referring to the historical peculiarities of any given state's origins - he's referring to the official, literal federation of US states.

> For most of the states, this is not true.

It's true for every state. Every state has borders, flags and histories. Every state has state governor, state legislature and state military.

> but most states started off as USA-controlled territory before going through the statehood process.

I know. What does that have to do with each state being structured as independent nations? Are you saying that wyoming doesn't have a governor, state legislature, state judicial system, state military?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com