Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: responding to the age of the earth

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 23 Nov 12 3:25 AM | 105 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 11905 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 11904 by DigSpace)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

i think one of the best set of examples is probably provided by the united kingdom and its constituent parts.

the different portions of the kingdom were brought together with england by different means. the welsh by conquest. the scots by the act of union under james vi of scotland. the northern irish via the partition of ireland.

but once joined together, i think there has mostly been a majority in favour of not splitting asunder through the years, even if sometimes there has been some strain.

even so, the union remains a voluntary thing based upon the will of the peoples within each country. occasionally referenda are held to test the waters of change.

scotland is moving towards a democratic vote to see if it wishes to become independent. i think it is a simple majority thing, although usually there is a stipulation that a certain percentage of the electorate must vote if the thing is to pass.

this is also complicated by the fact that many scots live outside scotland. so is it only the scottish scots and various other resident categories or they and the expat scots who get to vote? i think it's only the former at present.

you are right to point to the sense of obligation from the centre to the different countries. northern ireland has not been a bed of roses. but the rest of the uk perceived an obligation towards those who wished to remain a part of the uk during the troubles. and in fact, contrary to much american reporting, those people have always been the majority! now it is mostly a self-governing country within the uk, with a bit of an advisory arrangement between eire and the uk for the bits that aren't.

whereas wales has always had a majority in favour of remaining inside the uk. it has its own assembly, just as scotland does. but the big decisions are taken in westminster.

one last point. the argument was made that everyone in the uk should be permitted to vote on scotland's independence - the argument being that everyone is affected by it.

answer was no.

the scottish independence movement has been slow. i think that is the right speed for it. i don't know if many people resent the fact they wish to govern themselves. or feel the need to preserve a union in which one country no longer wishes to remain. i don't.

it is a helluva lot better to let folks go than fight to force them to stay. at least once they see themselves as having a divergent set of loyalties. much more likely that the relationship will be friendly and indeed, that perhaps they will change their minds at some point when the english rebuild hadrian's wall to keep the scots in scotland. ;-)

i see the same possible roadmap for the usa as the red states and the blue states keep falling further apart.

but maybe the gop will transform its political philosophy so that it is no longer quite so divisive and so determined to make washington ungovernable. to me, that is an unsustainable status quo.

as you probably know, i've been thinking this for some time. i am impressed how few folks will consider it. i guess this is because the reservoir of patriotism to the usa is very deep. and that is a positive thing on the other side of the debate.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: responding to the age of the earth
By: DigSpace in ALEA
Thu, 22 Nov 12 11:28 PM 		Msg. 11904 of 54959

I was trying to convey what was rattling around in my brain when using those words.

Debating the value of the concepts is a separate matter.

Certainly the right to travel exists e.g., although I do not know how that would develop in the case of succession.

Obviously the point about balkanization is just to briefly mention a geographic concept, and not whether as applied towards Yugo is was a good idea or not.

I don't believe one can reasonably argue that Yugo ever organically developed a Federalism with anything resembling a moral covenant. I think that the US, Canada, the UK and so on are different than Yugo. Similarly the USSR lacked the qualities of a developed consensus. I'm not saying folks in Scotland don't have issues with the crown, (although devolution in the UK may be a model for places like the US one could imagine if over time a more devolved status is sought).

Perhaps my notion is best served by the whole troubles thing. Can the crown walk from NI?, say 30 years ago, or was NI a legitimate member of a covenant, and then, what if NI had gone say 65:35 for seperation? what then and what of the 35?

I think what you are saying is that they could just move. And that is true and as I said it is a very difficult matrix to parse.

In the end I think it is, until it isn't.

So in the case of the US, I think that, all things taken in, that the circumstance of federalism based on a few choice words as their moral underpinning exists. As longs it is, it is. And as long as it is, I believe in obligation. Certainly relocation, cleansing, .... all these things ... they happen, perhaps they happen sensibly, perhaps not.

So you did make a point that I see as a solid one and one I truied to tip my hat too originally and obviously failled to articulate:

yours:" i think your federal morality is more of an argument than a moral case"

On this I can only say I fell morality is rather plastic, but n that argument I believe that affording a local majority rule within a membership unit in the federalism without profound consideration of the minority within those localities to a failure of obligation and I am willing to codify it as moral failure.

I do not accept the notion that a reasonable solution for palastinians is that they simply move to Jordan. Jordan might not want them, and they might not want to move. I would not be surprised if similar circumstances were to arise in the US where 30% of Alabamans were to so relocate.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next