Hacker News Reader

Comment by iso1631 | Hacker News Reader

Undemocratic countries do not like self determination.

If the vast majority of people who were born and live in a region want to be an independent country, that's their call. That could be Scotland, Falklands, Catalonia, Northern Cyprus, Texas, Ceuta, Crimea, Tibet, Hong Kong, Quebec, Reunion, etc. If they want to be part of another country then it's still their call, but obviously the other country also has to agree.

(I accept there's probably some discussion about how recent immigrants count, and the size or duration of the majority to make something change but the principal of self determination is one of the most basic rights people have)

View on HN

The issue with this argument is resettlement of citizens not from that region to alter the demographics, as is the case of Northern Cyprus. If your nation isn't given the right to self-determination until your existing community is outnumbered by settlers 2:1, did you really ever have the right to self-determination in the first place? Does a referendum in that case accurately represent the native communities that represented the invaded nation, or does it then represent the invading nation through the settlers?

Hence "I accept there's probably some discussion about how recent immigrants count"

The big question is when do people become native. You can't go back 200 years for obvious reasons, if you're born in America you're and American, just because your grandfather was born in Belfast it doesn't make you Irish. If you moved to Belfast when you were 10 and have lived there for 30 years though, then you clearly are.

Northern Cyprus is what it is now. Yes there were issues 50 years ago when it was partitioned, but life moves on. On the other hand if the US had invaded Basra, displaced the population, put in 2 million of its own citizens, and then claimed independence 2 months later based on overwhelming support, that wouldn't be reasonable. 100 years later, then sure.

Sometimes people lose out. It's sad, and shouldn't have happened, but after some time (that might be 10 years, it might be 100) you have just as much right to your voice as everyone else living there.

The argument amounts to might makes right. You're stronger than your neighbor? Just forcibly resettle some of your citizens there and give them an interest in your success.

The principle of self determination worked very nicely when there were pre-existing contested territories as a way to extinguish claims. But it must not be allowed to create competing claims or else it will do vastly more harm than it has so far eliminated. This is why it's generally not recognised. This is why Crimea and Catalonia's claims of UDI were disregarded. This is why Scotland is seeking independence through internal negotiation.

What harm are you trying to heal with self-determination? Or is it just some ideological commitment to the idea no matter how much suffering comes from it?

> The argument amounts to might makes right. You're stronger than your neighbor? Just forcibly resettle some of your citizens there and give them an interest in your success.

OK, so America wants to take over say Panama. Why would Panama allow millions of Americans to live there?

> This is why Scotland is seeking independence through internal negotiation.

Scotland isn't seeking independence. A large number of people in Scotland are. They have that right, so do people in Catalonia, California and Cornwall. In the case of California and Cornwall I'm fairly certain the number wanting independence is a tiny minority, but if they want independence they have full rights, just like the people of Virginia and co had a right to independence from the Britain back in the 18th century.

The alternative view is that the people of Virginia and co did not have that right, and that may be something you believe, but it's not something I believe

8% population increase since last census (2016). https://www.falklands.gov.fk/policy/2021-census/census

> Almost 70% of the population identifies as Falkland Islanders, British, or a combination of both. The diversity of national identities almost doubled compared to 2016, with 86 different nationalities counted, and more people identify as being a Falkland Islander in addition to their cultural background.

Falklands is a clear example of the entire population wanting to keep the status quo[0], there's no movement to change that on the island - no groups campaigning for it etc. There's no "both sides" to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereig...

Gibraltar was the same, but then brexit came, so not sure if that has swung opinion but I don't think. In 2002 87% of the total registered to vote voted to remain the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gibraltar_sovereignty_ref...

Catalonia probably wants independence (40% voted for it in 2017), and should have a decent referendum and debate with independence as an option, the travesty of the referendum just shows how undemocratic Spain is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...

New Caledonia on the other hand wants to retain the status quo, although not much. Maybe in 30 years time that will have changed, and there's certainly both valid sides of the conversation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_New_Caledonian_independen...

Who determines the borders of a "region"? Can a few Tory-leaning families in an independent Scotland declare their neighborhood an exclave of the UK? Clearly there's still some kind of implicit requirement of geopolitical muscle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com