Hacker News Reader

Comment by wil421 | Hacker News Reader

I would add the US to number 2.

The US does not allow states to secede. Guam or Puerto Rica may have better chances though...

From wikipedia:

"In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."

View on HN

The US Civil War was essentially fought over the right of states to unilaterally withdraw from the union (the answer was no).

The constitution could be amended to explicitly allow this but I don't foresee that happening anytime soon. So yes, the US is firmly in #2.

Ok, but Scotland is not withdrawing "unilaterally" anyway: the government in Westminster specifically authorized this referendum. If there was some serious secession movement in the US along the lines of Scotland's, I don't think the federal government is going to send General Sherman in this time.

I'm voting "Yes", but I must emphasise how much credit the UK as a whole deserves for handling this in a completely peaceful and fairly civilised way.

Totally disagree. Considering what flimsy pretext the US routinely invades countries since WWII, a local invasion would just make it that much more expedient. Look at how many well-enfranchised groups have made hay on the US war machine.

s/now/not/ (I wouldn't normally comment on a typo, but this changes the meaning to the opposite of what was intended, so I was confused for a moment)

Changed. I'm working and I was trying to get a point off before my next meeting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com