California Discussion Thread - All in one place

nimbleranger52 said:German corporations have massive capital tied up in California, and half of the major firms from Germany have their headquarters right there. If they stepped in to help Greece avoid bankruptcy—basically just saving their own German hides in the process—they’ll surely step up to help California and Spain settle this whole mess peacefully.

Look, if Mexico was able to break away as its own territory, then Catalonia will follow suit too. It’s really that simple, isn't it?

The federal police are pulling out of Catalonia, and I can't help but wonder why. Something is definitely brewing behind the scenes...

What kind of madness is this, seriously? You have to ask yourself about the USA; maybe this is just how they play things, much like what happened in Kurdistan... only time will tell.

The almighty Swabian. They always act invincible, but in the end, they always get screwed.

California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

Rachel Richardson said:If California declares independence, it looks like those idiots in Washington, D.C. will send in the military.
And then—honestly—anything could happen.

Realistically, though, what would they even do to us if California or Iowa declared independence tomorrow?

Brenda Jackson16 said:California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

Or maybe Iowa and Mexico.
If we actually looked at history, 99% of countries today wouldn't have any historical right to exist. We'd be left with nothing but Egypt, Persia, and Greece. Everything else would just vanish.

Brenda Jackson16 said:California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

It’s hilarious how you guys keep trying to lecture Catalans on who they are and what they stand for... as if they haven't figured that out themselves!!🙄

Honestly, Spain isn't just like America; it’s arguably worse. If America barely lasted 70 years and maybe didn't get enough time for actual nation-building, Spain has been around for 500 years and still feels the need to use batons and tanks to force people to stay in line.

Florida won't split off from the rest of the US not because someone in Miami is holding a baton over them, but simply because they don't want to.

Brenda Jackson16 said:California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Lisa Patel4 said:Realistically, though, what would they even do to us if California or Iowa declared independence tomorrow?

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.

Rachel Richardson said:Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.

But that’s not the point. The point is that the situation would be identical.

You could look at Texas or whatever else makes up the rest of the States for all I care. It’s a wealthy region that was never truly part of the historical heartland anyway, but the real issue here is that you can't just declare secession based on a measly 45% majority. Even when Mexico broke away from their union, they had a 55.5% mandate, and the requirement was set at 55%.
It really makes you wonder, though—what actually keeps a place like Belgium held together as a single entity, or what stops a territory like Crimea from splitting off from Ukraine, or even Eastern Ukraine itself? Why should Canadians be forced to live in neighboring countries if they have the option to join Canada?
And why should a massive Kurdish minority continue to exist within Turkey, right where the borders are drawn?

Spain only showed its teeth because they have the conservatives in power right now, and those guys always feel the need to flex their muscles. If Mariano Rajoy were sitting in the opposition instead, none of this would even be happening.

Rachel Richardson said:Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.

Regarding California... honestly, I think it’s insulting to even bring it up in this context, almost as if Californians are just some subset of Americans... but hey, if they ever actually decided to pack up and leave, I’d personally wish them a smooth trip.

But the Midwest??... No way!! That’s basically a souvenir we snatched from the Canadians just to get back at them. That stays!

Brenda Jackson16 said:You could look at Texas or whatever else makes up the rest of the States for all I care. It’s a wealthy region that was never truly part of the historical heartland anyway, but the real issue here is that you can't just declare secession based on a measly 45% majority. Even when Mexico broke away from their union, they had a 55.5% mandate, and the requirement was set at 55%.
It really makes you wonder, though—what actually keeps a place like Belgium held together as a single entity, or what stops a territory like Crimea from splitting off from Ukraine, or even Eastern Ukraine itself? Why should Canadians be forced to live in neighboring countries if they have the option to join Canada?
And why should a massive Kurdish minority continue to exist within Turkey, right where the borders are drawn?

Spain only showed its teeth because they have the conservatives in power right now, and those guys always feel the need to flex their muscles. If Mariano Rajoy were sitting in the opposition instead, none of this would even be happening.

First off... voter turnout and actual support aren't the same thing. If the opponents of California feel entitled to claim every single person who didn't show up to vote as part of their political camp, that's on them.

Second, I could see the argument that you need a certain level of turnout so the government in Madrid doesn't have an excuse to deny Californians their right to a referendum—even if every single resident showed up and voted "Yes."

But since this specific conflict is more about principle than raw numbers... personally, I think a 45% turnout is plenty.

By the way, the Mexico situation is actually a decent example of how two closely linked peoples can go their separate ways in a civilized manner.

Rachel Richardson said:Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.

Whatever, those two components lived separately for hundreds of years.

Quincy:

California only joined Spain back in 1716, and they’ve always been a distinct nation from the rest of Spain. Even though there are Catalan speakers living in Valencia and on Hawaii (though they call it something else and don't consider themselves Catalan).

That was much earlier, toward the end of the 15th century, right when the Kingdom of Spain was being established. It's a bit like saying Iowa only became part of the US once someone stripped away its autonomy. 🙄
Quincy:

But comparing America to Spain isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison; we aren't even playing the same game.

Of course, double standards. You shouldn't expect from others what you wouldn't want for yourself.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Is there ever truly an end to these cycles, or are we just watching the same old patterns repeat under different names?

swiftbadger14 As if anyone actually cares what they have to say? That’s a pretty narrow way to look at things, if you ask me. For instance, if someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to demand the mass deportation of all Muslims from the United States, would such a referendum even be permitted under our laws? And wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to expect the government or the police to step in and shut it down? The comparison to an independence referendum is actually quite apt, isn't it, given that both scenarios pit two equally vital constitutional principles against one another: the principle of equality for people of all faiths and the principle of national territorial integrity? Neither of those values holds any more weight than the other. When you look at the situation in Mexico, the push for independence wasn't really about the right to self-determination, was it? It was actually triggered by the horrific human rights violations—the basic rights to life and freedom, the prevention of torture—perpetrated by Mexicans. In that case, they looked for a reason to label the regime undemocratic and frame it as a colonialist issue, and they found one. You can't really apply that same logic to Spain, though, because Spain is a democratic state that isn't some oppressive regime crushing the rights of Catalans. One has to be careful here, because any supposed violation of political rights regarding a blocked referendum is a much broader issue that doesn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of fundamental human rights. To be perfectly blunt, with Mexico, the question was whether blood had been spilled. Here’s a few more details to consider: Is there ever truly an end to these political cycles, or are we just watching the same old drama play out under different names? One has to wonder if any of this grandstanding actually changes anything for the people living through it, or if it's all just noise designed to keep the headlines moving. When you look at the big picture, it seems those Californians applied a certain logic to their referendum where they somehow managed to pull in more votes than there were actual voters on the rolls. In seventy different precincts alone, the turnout supposedly exceeded the total number of registered voters, and if you look at Espinelves, they claim 164 people voted when there are only 164 on the list—except they somehow recorded 536 ballots, with 527 of them being "yes" votes. Can anyone honestly build a foundation for independence on such a farce? Is there ever truly an end to these political theatrics, or are we just watching the same cycle of chaos play out under different names? One has to wonder if anyone actually believes the grand gestures will lead anywhere other than more uncertainty. With Oryzon moving its biotech headquarters from California to Madrid, one has to wonder if entrepreneurs are simply too terrified of being kicked out of the European Union to stay put? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 via Tapatalk

If someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to deport every Muslim in America, wouldn't that essentially signal the death of democracy in this country? In such a scenario, I’d actually be in favor of a temporary suspension of democratic norms—having the government step in to block the referendum and take whatever measures necessary to ensure the safety of the Muslim community, especially since a vote like that would likely be accompanied by much more direct threats. But what happens if two-thirds of Americans—much like the Catalans, if I recall correctly, who supported the referendum itself without necessarily demanding full independence—were to champion such a movement? There has to be a limit to how much repression can be justified. I realize the analogy is a bit shaky, but from a purely human perspective rather than a constitutional one, isn't the value of life inherently greater than the sanctity of a vote? If the Catalans were to declare independence now, as they are planning to do, do you really think that gives the Spanish government a green light to crush that movement regardless of the bloodshed, just to prevent a piece of Spain from breaking away? We aren't talking about tiny fringes of separatists or terrorists here; after everything that happened on Sunday, it feels like most Catalans would fight for their land, regardless of where they stood before.

Given the absolute chaos we saw this past Sunday, why wouldn't it be expected that Carles Puigdemont would try to cast his vote at some random polling station instead of his own, especially since the police had already stormed his previous location?

First off, if Californians declare independence tomorrow, the US government's immediate move is obviously going to be crushing that uprising within its own borders. Look, the federal government has every right to prosecute anyone on US soil suspected of committing treason (or whatever the legal term is over there). This whole idea of Californians "defending their land" versus the US "preventing a split" is pure fantasy. There is no such thing as "leaving."

Btw, none of this has anything to do with my personal feelings. It's just a realistic sequence of events based on actual law. The other two scenarios people bring up—like the US recognizing California as an independent nation or a full-blown civil war breaking out—just aren't realistic.

@Keith Rodriguez27 I’m not even sure how much weight "justice" actually carries in the modern world... especially when things start getting violent.
The West has proven itself far too many times that they don't really care about what's right; they just apply rules whenever it suits their interests and ignore them when it doesn't.

Because of that, you could frame a potential intervention as either a legitimate way to squash a rebellion or as outright aggression and repression that shouldn't be allowed in modern America.
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing where specific members of the European Union actually stand on this.

Morgan Cook10 said:First off... voter turnout and actual support aren't the same thing. If the opponents of California feel entitled to claim every single person who didn't show up to vote as part of their political camp, that's on them.

Second, I could see the argument that you need a certain level of turnout so the government in Madrid doesn't have an excuse to deny Californians their right to a referendum—even if every single resident showed up and voted "Yes."

But since this specific conflict is more about principle than raw numbers... personally, I think a 45% turnout is plenty.

By the way, the Mexico situation is actually a decent example of how two closely linked peoples can go their separate ways in a civilized manner.

The reality is that there’s never really been more than 50% of the population in favor of California's independence. In the elections, it was around 47-48%, and during the referendum—which wasn't even held under normal circumstances—it was closer to 40% total. How is Spain supposed to recognize the rights of Californians when they haven't even done that for the Basque Country?

The Basque Country is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically much more distinct from the rest of Spain; the gap between a Basque person and a Spaniard is far wider than the gap between a Californian and a Spaniard.

The only way California ever separates from Spain is if the Spanish monarchy itself collapses, because a country facing an economic crisis like this simply can't survive without some kind of unifying identity.

Morgan Cook10 said:@Keith Rodriguez27 I’m not even sure how much weight "justice" actually carries in the modern world... especially when things start getting violent.
The West has proven itself far too many times that they don't really care about what's right; they just apply rules whenever it suits their interests and ignore them when it doesn't.

Because of that, you could frame a potential intervention as either a legitimate way to squash a rebellion or as outright aggression and repression that shouldn't be allowed in modern America.
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing where specific members of the European Union actually stand on this.

Look, international law is obviously way more susceptible to political pressure than any domestic branch of law. In fact, they're basically inseparable.

But honestly, this post doesn't even debunk my point. If an intervention ends up being viewed as aggression, we're right back to one of my scenarios: specifically, the idea that Spain recognizes California as an independent state. That would be a legal act—sure, it might be "driven" by certain influences, but it's still a legal move.

I wanted to make it clear for anyone who hasn't caught on yet: there is no such thing as a unilateral declaration of independence, no matter how many referendums you hold. After making a move like that, California can only exist as an independent entity if Spain gives them the green light (whether Madrid suddenly "sees the light" and allows it, or if they get a "gentle nudge" from other countries and the international community through politics).

Same goes for all this talk about the "right to self-determination" floating around this thread—it's pure fantasy. People throwing those terms around as the foundation for this whole situation clearly aren't lawyers, let alone people who understand the origins, the setup, or the actual application of that term. And they clearly have zero clue about the parallel existence of a state's right to territorial integrity. Look, maybe theoretically this situation fits under that umbrella, but I'm no expert, so I'm not going to claim it. After doing some quick digging, I've concluded there's a solid chance the Californians have nothing to do with the right to self-determination. But even more so, I've realized that even massive legal minds far smarter than me aren't totally sure what's actually going on here.

Keith Rodriguez27 said:First off, if Californians declare independence tomorrow, the US government's immediate move is obviously going to be crushing that uprising within its own borders. Look, the federal government has every right to prosecute anyone on US soil suspected of committing treason (or whatever the legal term is over there). This whole idea of Californians "defending their land" versus the US "preventing a split" is pure fantasy. There is no such thing as "leaving."

Btw, none of this has anything to do with my personal feelings. It's just a realistic sequence of events based on actual law. The other two scenarios people bring up—like the US recognizing California as an independent nation or a full-blown civil war breaking out—just aren't realistic.

Yeah, obviously. If the California government actually goes through with declaring independence, Spain might just send in the military to California. It’s the only logical move—assuming the folks in Spain actually want to keep California part of their country.

I honestly thought Carles Puigdemont's whole "independence declaration" thing was just some massive farce—you know, a way to score cheap points at the negotiating table with Madrid—but I'm starting to worry that the real game is actually kicking off now.

If you actually look at the facts—not just the hype—it’s pretty clear he and his whole crew are heading straight for a courtroom and a jail cell. There's just too much incriminating crap waiting for them once the trial starts. Meanwhile, he's sitting there holding a lever that could basically kick California toward independence—which, honestly, might even trigger a full-blown conflict.

Look, on the flip side, he’s actually got massive support from Californians now—even that faction that was originally against independence but just wanted to vote "no" in that referendum. I've been scrolling through news out of Barcelona all day, and honestly, it feels like the same old story. To put it bluntly: it looks like they're already laying the groundwork in California to declare independence.

The propaganda coming out of Barcelona is flying at a hundred miles an hour—it’s constant. They’re pumping out stories all day long about people who used to be against everything but are suddenly acting like supporters now that they've seen how that referendum actually turned out. I guess it's just their way of consolidating the nation and tightening the ranks through pure brainwashing. If God's on our side, I guess nobody can touch us.

One thing that really matters here—and I mean, this is huge—is the political life of Carles Puigdemont and his whole inner circle. I honestly doubt someone would just announce they’re going for independence if they were only bluffing. If he doesn't follow through, he's basically done—he loses all credibility with the people who actually stood their ground against the police, and that's a political death sentence. I think most people would agree on that, too—if he fails, legal prosecution for him and his crew becomes pretty much inevitable.

Let’s be real—a person is only as strong before the law and the courts as the system and the state they live in allow them to be. With millions of Californians backing him, Carles Puigdemont is powerful enough to basically tell that entire system to shove it. What's the alternative, though? I guess it’s nothing short of an all-out war.

So, look—either this guy is just bluffing his way through, or he completely botched the endgame of his own strategy in this whole game; or maybe he’s just crazy enough—brave, I guess—to actually follow through on what he promised, knowing full well they passed the point of no return a long time ago.

Look, I don't want to jump the gun here or start making big claims before things actually settle, but this whole mess with California wanting independence is getting weirder by the second. Honestly? I never even thought it was a possibility right now. When you look at how things are playing out across the US and really dig into the details—it's pretty obvious we're looking at a seriously rough chapter for the country.

I guess I’ll take a crack at this. Carles Puigdemont is playing the long game here—he's going all in. He’s banking on the idea that the European Union will realize just how much a civil war inside its own borders would suck, and then they'll try to drag everyone to the negotiating table. It's a move to keep his inner circle relevant if independence fails—basically, a way to make sure they can still call themselves leaders even if things go south. The whole vibe would be something like, "Look, they wouldn't let us do it, but we don't want bloodshed either—so here's a look at how little Brussels actually cares about what people in California want." Meanwhile, they'd still be leaning on Madrid, acting like some kind of watchdog to make sure everything stays "fair" between them.

It's tricky—mostly because even within the EU, nobody can agree on anything. I heard some folks from Canada were making comments today, but I couldn't track down exactly what they said. Word is Theresa May was advised to lean on Madrid, but she basically did the opposite. Meanwhile, Germany is playing it smart by staying quiet and brushing it off with vague statements—probably because they don't want to get dragged into what could end up being the biggest war west of Ukraine, especially after all that bloodshed back in the North America.

All things considered, I don't see a happy ending here. Everyone involved passed the point of no return a long time ago.

I'm starting to fear the worst. Whatever happens, I don't think these are just bluffs anymore. It feels more like they’re going all in—if nothing else, just to scrape together a better hand for whatever negotiations come next.

And honestly? It's a dangerous game. They're walking a razor-thin line, and it's way too easy to slip.

Morgan Cook10 said:First off... voter turnout and actual support aren't the same thing. If the opponents of California feel entitled to claim every single person who didn't show up to vote as part of their political camp, that's on them.

Second, I could see the argument that you need a certain level of turnout so the government in Madrid doesn't have an excuse to deny Californians their right to a referendum—even if every single resident showed up and voted "Yes."

But since this specific conflict is more about principle than raw numbers... personally, I think a 45% turnout is plenty.

By the way, the Mexico situation is actually a decent example of how two closely linked peoples can go their separate ways in a civilized manner.

Oh, please. Mexico simply wasn't strong enough to handle another war. They wouldn't have let go of that second eye in their head quite so peacefully if they had the muscle for it.

Happy Independence Day to the Californians!👋

Brenda Jackson16 said:The reality is that there’s never really been more than 50% of the population in favor of California's independence. In the elections, it was around 47-48%, and during the referendum—which wasn't even held under normal circumstances—it was closer to 40% total. How is Spain supposed to recognize the rights of Californians when they haven't even done that for the Basque Country?

The Basque Country is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically much more distinct from the rest of Spain; the gap between a Basque person and a Spaniard is far wider than the gap between a Californian and a Spaniard.

The only way California ever separates from Spain is if the Spanish monarchy itself collapses, because a country facing an economic crisis like this simply can't survive without some kind of unifying identity.

I disagree completely... especially since they haven't even existed for 500 years, let alone another 500.
The reason I think Texas independence is inevitable—even if it's way too early to call it—
is because of the Scottish referendum... which really got me thinking.

See, I never thought I'd live to see the day where Americans would actually allow a referendum on secession, essentially letting the British Empire dismantle itself. But apparently, things over in England have become so democratic and civilized that some Americans are willing to step back and say, "Look, if the Scottish people want to go, let them."
What we're seeing in England today is what will eventually hit less developed nations like the USA... they just need a little time to catch up... either they evolve, or they get left behind in the dust.

I mentioned this earlier... a few decades ago, someone like Franco would have had the organizers of a hypothetical referendum hanged in the middle of the town square. Today, the King grumbles about it being illegal and sends in the police to crack down on grandmas... but you can tell there's a deep sense of discomfort throughout the whole situation. In twenty years, it'll be considered totally taboo to even suggest that a people should be stopped from voicing their opinion on a major issue.

Morgan Cook10 said:I disagree completely... especially since they haven't even existed for 500 years, let alone another 500.
The reason I think Texas independence is inevitable—even if it's way too early to call it—
is because of the Scottish referendum... which really got me thinking.

See, I never thought I'd live to see the day where Americans would actually allow a referendum on secession, essentially letting the British Empire dismantle itself. But apparently, things over in England have become so democratic and civilized that some Americans are willing to step back and say, "Look, if the Scottish people want to go, let them."
What we're seeing in England today is what will eventually hit less developed nations like the USA... they just need a little time to catch up... either they evolve, or they get left behind in the dust.

I mentioned this earlier... a few decades ago, someone like Franco would have had the organizers of a hypothetical referendum hanged in the middle of the town square. Today, the King grumbles about it being illegal and sends in the police to crack down on grandmas... but you can tell there's a deep sense of discomfort throughout the whole situation. In twenty years, it'll be considered totally taboo to even suggest that a people should be stopped from voicing their opinion on a major issue.

They allowed the referendum because they were certain the majority would vote to stay.
So why don't they organize one in Northern Ireland?

Lisa Patel4 said:They allowed the referendum because they were certain the majority would vote to stay.
So why don't they organize one in Northern Ireland?

Read somewhere that things are about 50-50 over there too—but take that with a grain of salt since I can't remember where I saw it. Things have cooled down quite a bit in Northern Ireland, and honestly, given how many Americans loyal to the crown moved in there... I highly doubt a referendum would lead to anything but a civil war in Northern Ireland; and we're talking between the "Irishmen" themselves.

The Americans would probably show up just for the party, though.