Talk:List of active autonomist and secessionist movements

/archive1

Contents

1 Problem with United Kingdom bit 2 United Kingdom 3 Macau 4 Definition 5 São Tomé and Príncipe and other African countries 6 Other questionable entries 7 Major Secessionist Movements?

Problem with United Kingdom bit

One of the problems is that The Channel Islands, The Isle of Man and Gibraltar aren't part of the U.K. Also there's no reason for having the entry "Orkney" on the list. The Orkney Islands are just a place in The U.K. Unless we're going to have to have every single place that's in the U.K. on the list, Birmingham, Clapham, Little Waltham etc., then it needs to be deleted. Can someone attend to this? I get blocked for a month by a bloke called "Neutrality" if I so much as change a jot.WikiUser 21:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Although I realise that changing the title to "UK and associated islands (Europe)" doesn't really work for Gib. Any suggestions? Kevintoronto 16:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

United Kingdom

has never been a country. It's a state with several countries within it. This is even acknowledged to an extent officially unlike certain other states.

Macau

has an active autonomist movement?--Huaiwei 06:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More accurately, movements to safeguard autonomy. — Instantnood 14:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

With no outright demand for greater autonomy, isnt it? If so, perhaps it should be removed from this list?--Huaiwei 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't tell what active autonomist movement is. — Instantnood 06:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then define it.--Huaiwei 08:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with the current version. — Instantnood 09:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You dont have to tell me that, and it is hardly of interest to me. I was asking about Macau. In my opinion, it does not need to be there when they do not have active movements demanding for greater autonomy or independence.--Huaiwei 10:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the article doesn't tell what an active autonomist movement is, I tend to keeping cases like Macau. — Instantnood 12:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

First you say you dont find any problem with the definition. Then you say it dosent tell you what anything is. The contradiction is getting amusing. Meanwhile, listing Macau in this page alongside examples like Kosovo, Kashmir and even Hong Kong seems like an extreme mismatch.--Huaiwei 13:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, when did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? And second, how is it mismatched? — Instantnood 13:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any problem with the current version." Oh.....so you are going to claim that you are talking about something else right? Right. Typical Instantnood behavior. Meanwhile, may I know which organisation(s) is advocating for greater autonomy in Macau for one? Do they have demonstrations? Do they have mass movements? Do they even have major discourse happening in any media?--Huaiwei 13:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? — Instantnood 13:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This political group (http://home.macau.ctm.net/~newmacau/) and its two lawmakers strive to defend and safeguard Macau's autonomy. They consider the acts of the government undermining its autonomy. They have demonstrations. — Instantnood 13:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Defend and safeguard you say? What does that got to do a fight for greater autonomy, a common trait for practically every other entity in that list? And how big is this political group? 2 people? 10? 100? 100,000?--Huaiwei 13:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did the article say only places with organisation fighting for greater autonomy can be listed? And to repeat myself, did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? — Instantnood 14:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously do not care about what you think of the definition. That kind of debate, you can wage with your 3 year old nephew. I am more concerned over why Macau appears in this list. Macau is not demanding independence, or is it? Macau is not demanding greater autonomy, or is it? If you are saying it exists because it wants to maintain the status quo, then perhaps we shall then include the hundreds upon hundreds of organisations and their home countries whereby they also happen to be advocating the "status quo"? A simple look through of the article gives you a clear impression of its intentions...they are fillled with seperatist/secessionist movements calling for either greater autonomy (with possiblities for eventual statehood), or outright independence immediately. Having Hong Kong listed already raises eyebrows...Hong Kong hopes for greater autonomy with statehood ambitions? To see Macau also listed just because Hong Kong is there has made a mockery out of this article!--Huaiwei 16:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before we start efficiently expending our mental resources on an exceptionally useful and helpful flame war, we should take a step back. There does not seem to be a stated definition of "autonomist and secessionist" movement; we should probably create one. However, the name does make it plain that we're talking about movements seeking autonomy or secession/independence. If you can demonstrate that such a movement exists in Macao, then it belongs on the list. If not, then it doesn't. Unfortunately, my Chinese isn't up to reading the link provided, but if this group does in fact merely seek to maintain the status quo (i.e., SAR status), then it doesn't qualify. siafu 17:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks siafu. What some of the people are advocating is to fight for the autonomy what an SAR should be deserved to have enjoyed. They think what the SAR government under Edmund Ho and the pro-Beijing lawmakers are doing has undermined, or more precisely, damaged its autonomy as an SAR. — Instantnood 18:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• then point to wikipedia articles about the secessionist movement, not to the articles about the state. the US has thousands of kooks in it that say they are autonomist or secessionist that nobody pays attention to - some of them are linked to here. If you think they are worthy of being listed here, then write the article. if they are that unimportant, then don't link here. SchmuckyTheCat 03:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• which means you are suggesting that this group is saying the local govenment is undermining the level of autonomy already granted when it was accorded SAR status, and they are demanding a return to that level of autonomy? Honestly...this still sounds like maintaining the staus quo...it does not involve the changing any laws or constitutions. The PRC does not have to yield anything...it has already granted that autonomy. So in what way are they calling for greater autonomy beyond what has been given to them? For Hong Kong, the only reason they might appear is the whole issue on demanding the rights to elect their leader. Does this happen in Macau to a significant scale to be wikipedia-worthy?--Huaiwei 04:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many of the entries are listed without mentioning the relevant orgaisations. And the article does not state what an active autonomist or secessionist movement is. We have little foundation to comment on which are qualified to be listed, and which are not. — Instantnood 09:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

And so because of the definition is deemed as poorly defined, we have our hands tied, and are forced to keep an entity here even thou we know full well it is not asking for greater autonomy or independence? If this page is as dubious as this, perhaps it needs to be removed?--Huaiwei 09:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep it as it has been, until a clearer definition has been concluded to tell what qualifies to be listed. — Instantnood 09:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are missing the point that no matter how we defines it, Macau still dosent qualify?--Huaiwei 10:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't think it's qualified, but I do. — Instantnood 10:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like there is a general agreement above that if we cannot show that Macau is asking for greater autonomy, then it should not be in this page? I certainly do not think its between you and I. You think too highly of me. Instead of spending all your time writing what looks more suitable for soup opera scripts in discussion pages, perhaps you should be spending more time demonstrating the facts directly under dispute?--Huaiwei 11:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Huaiwei mentioned in the section right below that the parties/movements in Macao are only calling for a preservation of the status quo. In reality, although autonomy is already guaranteed on paper, the organisations in Macao are striking to have such autonomy fulfilled. IMHO it does fit into the definition of autonomist movements. — Instantnood 16:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Obviously, we need a definition. I think it's fair to say that we can rely on the following criteria for an entry on this list:

1. It must be an 'active' movement (i.e., have active, living members).

2. It must be seeking autonomy or secession for a particular region or area.

Which seems pretty simple. If there's anything we need to equivocate on further, please say so now. Once we got this hashed out, I'll put it on the page proper. siafu 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider if we are including parties or movements calling for a preservation of the status quo, vs those asking for greater political/social freedom? I personally assumed this page was meant for the later, and not the former, hence the whole debate over Macau above.--Huaiwei 12:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a little bit irrelevant here, but as someone has inacurately brought it up I have to tell anyways. The New Macau Association is asking for greater political and social freedom within the present legal and constitutional framework, which the government is not doing. For instance the right of assembly is guaranteed, but the government had a record of getting electricity supply to a June 4 vigil. They are not calling for a preservation of the status quo, but freedom within the present framework. — Instantnood 15:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please, keep Macao debate in the section above. I'm not trying to legitimize or illegitimize any party or their agenda, just trying hammer out what belongs on this particular page-- once we get this done it should provide us with a reasonable tool for deciding the debate. If we include those asking for greater policital/civil freedoms, then we'd have to include the Libertarian party in the United States as well as the ACLU, neither of which strike me as "autonomist" or "secessionist", so I suggest not having that in the definition. siafu 16:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know we should keep the debate in the section above. But someone brought it up in an inaccurate manner, and I have to make some clarification. The discussion, if there's any, will continue above. — Instantnood 16:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sure I merely said "hence the debate over Macau above", and I clearly did not even bother mentioning which scenario Macau falls into. So what is with the "inaccuracy"? I do wonder who is this "someone" you are refering to then?--Huaiwei 22:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding siafu's proposed criteria above, it makes sense to me. Regarding Macau, whatever the the legal basis may be, they are seeking greater autonomy. Maybe a flaw in the proposed definition is that by implication it only includes movements for absolute autonomy, while in the real world there are many degrees of autonomy. Maybe the definition should be amended to be "It must be seeking increased autonomy or secession for a particular region or area" or something similar. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with have to have a definition, but I'm afraid there's no absolute autonomy, except real independence. Autonomy is something relative. — Instantnood 15:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The definition takes in relative degrees of autonomy just fine; it just centers on regional autonomy instead of personal autonomy (civil freedom). siafu 15:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hm..with regards to Macau, I dont see how the above indicated that they are seeking greater autonomy. If we are to critically analyise this paragraph: "The New Macau Association is asking for greater political and social freedom within the present legal and constitutional framework, which the government is not doing. For instance the right of assembly is guaranteed, but the government had a record of getting electricity supply to a June 4 vigil. They are not calling for a preservation of the status quo, but freedom within the present framework."

Notice that they are seeking "greater" autonomy within the present legal and constitutional framework. In other words, in terms of legality and the constitution, a level of autonomy has already been guaranteed. Aceeding to these people's demands will not involve a rewrite of the constitution or any other law, quite in contrast to the vast majority of examples listed here. The example highlighted says the same thing. These groups are demanding that autonomy which has been granted should be exercised on the ground. Are they asking for more autonomy beyond what has been granted? No. and most importantly, does this call for greater economy actually involve domestic politics and civil liberties, or regional autonomy from the PRC? If we are going to consider domestic liberties as a qualifying factor, then I suppose almost every country on Earth will get listed, and almost every organisation with any form of liberalist inclinations will get listed too? Is this what the article sets out to archieve?--Huaiwei 16:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They aren't merely asking for civil liberties, but requesting the government not to say yes to political pressures from Beijing. Don't simply jump to the conclusion if you are not familiar with it. Please. — Instantnood 17:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am making conclusions from your comments right now. If they are inadequate, you only have yourselves to blame, because you did not mention this earlier. You say they are "requesting the government not to say yes to political pressures from Beijing". Mind giving concrete examples?--Huaiwei 18:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind. But Macao is listed there for some time, and it was you who challenged whether it should be qualified to be listed. You are the one to be responsible for giving evidence why it shouldn't be listed. If you're not familiar with it, do some homework. — Instantnood 20:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Timing as little relevance for this site, for quite an obvious reason. People do not always log in and track changes everyday, and they do not always check every single edits of any other person as much as you do. For a site as vast as this, you cannot assume others will have noted the existance of an entry from the time it is up. I posted the question the moment I happened to chance upon it, and I asked for more information because I have ever seen any report on the supposed Macau autonomist movement in any major Asian newspaper, let alone on international newswires. So again I ask...where is the concrete evidence?--Huaiwei 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've got to ask why it got listed in the very beginning. If you have never heard about it, you should proceed to look for information, instead of requesting people who oppose your proposal to delete it to provide evidence, or else it has to be deleted. — Instantnood 11:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

(response to siafu's comment at 15:07, 25 Mar 2005) Agree. Autonomy is always something in relative sense. Some of those listed are sucessionist movements from a province to be a separate province within the sovereign state, and these could hardly be called absolute autonomy. It just fine as long as the movements listed are seeking for increase autonomy, of a certain region. — Instantnood 20:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Increased autonomy can naturally be considered for inclusion in this page. The problem is what kind of autonomy are we talking about here, plus the need to diffrentiate between political autonomy occuring within a political sub-entity, and that which involves the larger political entity it belongs to. Calling for the local government to respect rights as enshrined in existing laws by the controlling higher-level government is not the same as groups calling for existing laws to be amended to allow for greater autonomy from that government.--Huaiwei 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very right. It is logical to have some definitions. But I'm pretty sure Macao is not the only case on the list. What we can do is to tell readers what form of autonomy it is seeking, and what actually the people involved are heading to. It's not black and white, to keep or to kick. — Instantnood 11:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this discussion is getting rather sidetracked by a specific case. I'm proposing that we can have several black and white requirements for inclusion, with at least one area (level of autonomy desired) left as a spectrum. Since I haven't heard any other suggested criteria at this point, if no one objects in the next 48 hours I'm going to go ahead and place the definition as it is on the page proper. siafu 03:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your suggestion Siafu. After much pointless debates (see the history of this talk page), this article was finally renamed to List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. The list is meant to include currently active movements seeking important political changes in a given region of the world. Although not explicit, the region is of course often considered the homeland or historical homeland of a people. The political transformations can range from simply negociating greater autonomy within a given state to obtaining total independance from a state through negociation or violence. When I created the "template" of this article so to speak, I divided the movements according to what we have in Quebec, that is organisations whose actions are either primarily political (political parties), civic (labour unions, citizens associations promoting Quebec nationalism) or cultural (organisations promoting French and Quebec culture). In the past, there were also one organisation, the FLQ, which decided to resort to violent actions. Since it is no longer active, it was added to List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements.

-- Mathieugp 19:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarity, it seems that an inference for your statement would be that if a secessionist movement were successful in gaining full political independence, it would promptly need to be moved to List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements? If so, I agree. If not, please clarify.

I also am happy with the current template; I find it informative (elegant even?) and does not seem in any way obstructive.

However, the issue of homeland seems to me a difficult one from the outset. Not only do I not think it entirely necessary for a group to claim the region they are seeking greater autonomy in to be their "homeland", I also think that determining what is or isn't a group's homeland is an exceptionally thorny issue (see, e.g., FYRO Macedonia Macedonian Slavs vs. Macedonian-Albanians). I think it would be better to leave this at most implicit, and perhaps even explicitly denied in the definition.

siafu 03:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since it appears I'm not attracting any further discussion with this, I went ahead and put a blurb in the top by way of definition. siafu 23:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe and other African countries

Principe is listed as a region of São Tomé and Príncipe here. No movement is identified. Is there any evidence that there is active autonomist/secessionist movement? It is an island of 5400 people, after all. If there is no evidence of a movement, perhaps we should remove Principe from this list.

I raise the same questions about Madagascar - Merina, Ghana - Dagomba and United Kingdom (Africa) - Saint Helena. The articles on the regions do not mention autonomist/secessionist movements. Comments? Kevintoronto 22:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Seems good to me. siafu 23:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted them, then. They can be added back in if someone cna provide some evidence. Thanks. Ground Zero 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other questionable entries

Here are some more entries on the list that are questionable. I will remove these unless someone can provide some evidence of an active autonmoist or secessionst movement. Thanks.

Muscat, Oman, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, Lìmon, Costa Rica, and Pitcairn Island. Ground Zero 19:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem might be a bit more general; this isn't supposed to be a list of "troublesome regions" but a list of movements. Entries that refer only to a region don't provide us with much at all-- they should be the names of actual movements, even if its just a red link, IMHO. siafu 22:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. What I've been doing is going through and taking a look at the regions that do not have movements identified and reviewing the articles. I haven't found anything in these articles to suggest autonomist/secessionist activity. In some cases, I have not nominated a region for deletion even though there is no movement listed because I am aware that there is some autonomist/secessionist activity. I'll provide examples later. Ground Zero 14:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've lived in California for fourteen years, and I've hever heard of either the California Secessionist Party, or the Committee to Explore California Secession. I'd imagine that many of the other listings in developed countries are equally pitiful. --Smack (talk) 21:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major Secessionist Movements?

Does anyone have some sort of statistic for the largest and most important movements? They probably have the greatest military and political strength.--Teh Bomb Sophist

What would be your criteria for the level of "importance" of a movement? The percentage of popular approval? Also, please sign your talk entries; thanks. ;) --Liberlogos 21:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yes, popular approval percentage sounds good. I really, really doubt the existence of much support in say, the U.S., to secede. Another factor is military/para-military strength. For example, I'm not sure if most Basques in Spain and France want their own nation, but the ETA sure makes life difficult. --Teh Bomb Sophist 22:31, 13 May 2005 (PST)

Here are some relatively recent surveys I have found about some of the strongest and/or best known independence movements in the world. These surveys were conducted with different questions and standards, but it still can help one understand better. I may update it in the near future so keep aware. ;) --Liberlogos 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Kurdistan
  • 2005 informal referendum on independence: 98.7% in favour (you read well!) - [1] (http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6212)

• Quebec
  • Two 2005 surveys on sovereignty with supra-national partnership: 54% in favour - [2] (http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/04/27/80417.html), [3] (http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/infos/national/archives/2005/05/20050514-070913.html)

• Basque Country
  • 2005 survey on the Ibarretxe plan: 47% in favour (27% opposed) - [4] (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/123BB1C6-F423-4E5A-942A-30DFEB3F8B26.htm)
  • 2004 survey on political future: 31% in favour of independence (32% for status quo, 31% for federal model of greater autonomy) - [5] (http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/study%20abroad/the%20economist%20articles/Spain%20and%20the%20regions/Spain%20and%20the%20Regions.htm)

• Scotland
  • 2005 survey on independence (probably within the EU): 46% in favour (39% opposed, 15% undecided) - [6] (http://www.snp.org/snpnews/2005/snp_press_release.2005-04-12.3913419731)

• Catalonia
  • 2001 survey on independence: 35.9% in favour (48.1% opposed, 13.3% undecided) - [7] (http://wais.stanford.edu/Spain/spain_cataloniaandindep73102.html) (tell us if you find a more recent one)

• Taiwan
  • Opinion on independence (unknown date): 30% in favour - [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence#Current_status) (Wikipedia article without reference)

• Britanny
  • 2000 survey on independence (unknown date): 19% in favour, in current departments of Britanny (30% in Loire-Atlantique) - [9] (http://bretagne.unie.free.fr/news/091100/sondage.htm)

• Wallonia
  • 2003 survey on political future: 14% in favour of independence (75% for status quo, 36% for reunion with France) - [10] (http://www.vigile.net/ds-chroniques/docs3/jf-03-5-3.html)

• Corsica
  • Survey on independence (unknown date): 13% in favour - [11] (http://www.corsica-isula.com/public.htm)

Thanks. I'd think there would be more areas in the world though. Teh Bomb Sophist [Time]