SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Voters in Scotland have turned down independence for now, but separatist movements continue across Europe, possibly threatening to dismantle Spain, France, and Belgium as well as the UK. The next milestone will be an independence vote on Nov. 9 in Catalonia, the region on the northeast coast of Spain which includes Barcelona; separatists are expected to win handily, but the vote is not binding on the Spanish government. Slate has a neat map showing what a completely redrawn Europe would look like, if accommodations were made for all movements that have joined a loose collective called European Free Alliance; a more complete but visually less satisfying map, including EFA holdouts such as Northern Ireland, appears in Wikipedia. The Washington Post has thumbnail descriptions of eight movements.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:26PM
Scots have had a people and cultural identity separate from England for centuries-to-millenia. Similarly, Catalonians have been a distinct people (with their own language and culture) much longer than an accident of geography made them part of Spain. The Kurds have been a distinct people without a homeland for centuries.
The current Red State/Blue State divide in the US? Not so much.
There's not a massive majority group in ANY state - even the reddest states voted around 65%-35% in the last election (similarly for the bluest). And that's when people were forced to identify one way or another - the rabid democrats/republicans are a distinct minority even in the most extreme states. Not exactly the cleanest division. And fundamentally temporary - what happens when Hispanics become a near-majority in Texas, for example?
But more importantly, the differences are not exactly long standing, nor are the representative of a deep philosophical alignment. The Dixiecrats held most of the South for the democratic party through to the '50's, for example. Rand Paul and Ralph Nader are good illustrations of the divisions even within the "red" and "blue" groups - some love them, some hate them (even on "their own" sides).
Sure, the political discourse has gotten increasingly uncivil, but there's a huge difference between Scotland (for centuries independent and even within their current structure recognized as an independent nation) and (say) the states that are currently republican majority in the south taking their bat and ball and going home.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:45PM
I agree with the rest of your post, but this argument doesn't really hold. The majority party in those regions flipped because the positions of the parties themselves flipped. It wasn't because the majority ideologies in those regions changed.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:50PM
Which is my point.
The geography of "who belongs with who?" isn't some fixed thing - it changes over time. In this case, it changed with the change of party platforms. Making long-term decisions based on present-day political boundaries is a fool's errand, because those political boundaries (history tells us) are highly likely to change.
Oh, and by the way, I'd argue the "parties themselves" didn't flip or reverse positions. It was that the Democrats went from "paying lip service to civil rights" to "actively advocating civil rights" in 1964.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:31PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:00AM
The parties didn't really flip positions; the Democrats put forward a Catholic candidate, Kennedy. The South was solidly Protestant; the Catholics were in the Northeast. The South switched to Republicans because Lincoln's party wasn't as bad as a northern Catholic.