You have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Generally regionalization and the localizing of decision-making is imo a good thing. But secession entails a change in living conditions that has to be taken into account. Once you start looking at what the consequences would be for the people who actually live in Texas, you'd immediately reject the option. An independent Texas would be impoverished, even more so once the bulk of the workforce decides to move to the US proper because they prefer living in a first world country. But in other situations (Scotland, Ireland, Wallonia, etc) the circumstances will be different.

Decentralisation is something I'm on board with in some instances, but secession is something I don't agree with in many cases at all. Of course every case is different, but those that are based on nationalist ideals or economic decisions are not cases I agree with whatsoever. I feel the same way about nations seeking to leave the EU really.

I mean, if we're going on a purely financial level then I'm from the most impoverished area of the United Kingdom - The Midlands. There's a 'Mercian independence movement', but in actuality the rest of the UK would benefit immensely from not having to subsidise the Midlands any more. Does that mean they should leave? Economic reasons for splitting up peoples are pretty abhorrent to me. Just like, as a European, I feel angry about the people who are protesting about Romania and Bulgaria's EU status due to financial reasons. In fact, I'm almost as angry at those guys as I am about those who're against it for RACIST reasons!

If we're speaking of situations involving legitimate oppression, with a ruling ethnic class discriminating against a populace, then sure, independence sounds a wonderful thing. The recognition of Palestine and its complete independence for example, are things I can get on board with. Same with the problems caused by Serbia-Montenegro. But these decisions weren't based entirely on economic situations at all. Hence why I believe that secession in the Western World is a vastly different kettle of fish.


Like TEXAS LEAVE BECAUSE HATE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND OBAMA WIN is weird. As are the Cornish and Mercian independence movements.

geodude speaks like a street urchin.

But he's pretty correct about Scotland being a net contributor rather than a net receiver. However, Scotland doesn't subsidise the REST OF THE UK - it helps to subsidise other regions of the UK, such as the Midlands. Technically, a few of the regions of the UK are net contributors (The South West, the South East, Scotland), while others are net receivers (The Midlands, Wales, The North East). Again, Scotland IS a net contributing region, but the idea that it subsidises the entirity of the rest of "England" is as false as the idea of Scotland receiving more subsidies than it gives out.

A comparative analogy would be the commonly used in the media idea here that the UK subsidises the rest of the EU. We don't of course. We contribute, but so do other nations within the EU (France, Germany etc), whereas some others receive more than they contribute. Again though, that's because we have it to give, whereas they don't. The UK doesn't subsidise the rest of the EU nations, Scotland doesn't subsidise the rest of the UK - but both are net contributors whereas others are net receivers.

Where I'm from is the MOST subsidised region in the UK. Both Scottish AND South Eastern money goes to prop up the Midlands. However, that's not a reason for either to secede - they shouldn't just ABANDON the Midlands because they'd be "better off" without it. Fuck, the Midlands even receives quite a lot of money from the EU directly through projects and deprivation funds, so we're (I still think of myself as a MIGHTY MIDLANDER!!!!) subsidised by Scotland, the South East, and the rest of the EU nations hehe.

I think the huge problem is that both sides of the debate tend to overstate matters significantly (or outright lie, in the case of SCOTTISHERS TAKIN' ALL OUR TAX DOLLAR). Surely the point of any union is that richer areas subsidise poorer areas anyway.

I keep using 'Midlands' by the way, when in actuality I mean 'West Midlands'. The East Midlands is still pretty poor also, but not as much as the West.

Weird, especially considering that a couple hundred years ago the West Midlands was a major powerhouse of the industrial revolution !




EDIT: Oh also, devolution was a really wonderful idea, but really weirdly other regions in the UK rejected the premise. The North East had a referendum on devolution but rejected it for some bizarre reason. Apparently they were completely happy with having less say over their region ​.


But, to be fair, Birmingham rejected having a MAYOR for some reason >_<!

yeah that's a more nuanced overview of it, i was blanketing because the important point was scotland as a net contributor

Oh, totally! It's much easier for Daily Mail readers to moan about LAZY SCOTSMAN STEAL MY TAX DOLLAR than it is to actually accept that we WOULD be worse off if they left the union hehe.

No one wants to be the dumpee!!!

Really just goes to show that people like me who have no stake in the game should have no say about this, but my idea was that the current plan that's on the table will actually maintain its contributions to the UK, rather than entirely taking their hands off of it.

Well Dada, technically you DO have a stake as you're a citizen of the EU. Maybe the British union breaking up wouldn't have as dramatic an effect on you as it would like me or Jamie or geodude or whatever, but like you're the next EU memberstate over from us and shit. WE ARE EUROPEAN BROTHERS MY COMRADE!!! It's an issue that should be important to all of us really, either way!

PS: GEODUDE DID YOU VOTE FOR A CRIME COMMISSIONER TODAY?!

We had a vote for BRISTOL MAYOR it was very exciting. I voted for SPUD MURPHY!!!