[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Are there any non-island, non-contiguous nations around in the world today?
[/QUOTE]
You’re living in one ;). Alaska is cut off from the rest of the U.S. by Canada.
Part of Russia (formerly East Prussia) is cut off from the rest of Russia. You can see it on this map. The territory in question is bordered by the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, and Poland.
[QUOTE=treis]
You’re living in one ;). Alaska is cut off from the rest of the U.S. by Canada.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Are there any non-island, non-contiguous nations around in the world today?
[/QUOTE]
In addition to Alaska, the Wikipedia entry on enclaves and exclaves has several examples that fit the bill: “Enclaves which are also exclaves” and “Exclaves which are not enclaves”. Some of the cases listed are islands, but most are not.
The Baarle-Nassau/Baarle-Hertog area near the Belgium / Netherlands border(s!) is probably the most complicated case of national non-contiguity.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Actually, on a somewhat more serious note (and totally off the original topic), both Pakistan and the United Arab Republic broke up very quickly after formation when the smaller parts of those non-contiguous entities decided they’d rather not be ruled from afar. While I think it’s much less likely that the Maritimes would go Bangladesh on Ontario and Western Canada, it’s still something to consider.
[/QUOTE]
Newfoundland’s whole “We won’t fly the flag!” thing aside, most of the Maritimes rely fairly heavily on financial support from the rest of Canada. People usually won’t support putting their own economy into the tubes.
[QUOTE=Antonius Block]
In addition to Alaska, the Wikipedia entry on enclaves and exclaves has several examples that fit the bill: “Enclaves which are also exclaves” and “Exclaves which are not enclaves”. Some of the cases listed are islands, but most are not.
The Baarle-Nassau/Baarle-Hertog area near the Belgium / Netherlands border(s!) is probably the most complicated case of national non-contiguity.
[/QUOTE]
That article about the Belgium/Netherlands border was totally worth my $15. Go Dope!
[QUOTE=straight man]
Newfoundland’s whole “We won’t fly the flag!” thing aside, most of the Maritimes rely fairly heavily on financial support from the rest of Canada. People usually won’t support putting their own economy into the tubes.
[/QUOTE]
Post #73
Newfoundland and Labrador is (IIRC) classified as an Atlantic Province of Canada and not a Maritime.
[QUOTE=severus]
No, no Canadian province wants to join the US. Sure, there may be talk in the Western provinces of how far they are from Ottawa and how they don’t feel they count, but apart from a few people they don’t think joining the US is a solution.
[/QUOTE]
Well put. I’ll add that western separation is an issue that has died down in recent times, but when it was more in the news, independence was the goal. “Let’s separate from Canada” meant “Let’s become our own independent country.” It definitely did not mean “Let’s become a US state.”
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Texas was admitted with the condition it could split into as many as 5 states, but I believe that’s been repealed.
[/QUOTE]
As others have indicated, Texas was admitted with a limitation that it could be split into no more than five states, a limitation that applies to no other state.
[QUOTE=Governor Quinn]
You have it reversed. Outside commentators regarded Hawaii as being a Republican area, and Alaska as a Democratic area, during the time of the statehood debate. That they are the opposite now is due to political developments either just before statehood (Hawaii) or after statehood (Alaska).
[/QUOTE]
What would be a good source for more information about the party political shifts in Alaska and Hawaii?
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
I would be very surprised if Republicans would be able to muster an argument to keep PR out of statehood if they applied, no matter the political ramifications.
[/QUOTE]
I seem to recall that Newt Gingrich has already stated his philosophical opposition to admitting a majority-non-English-speaking territory as a state. Given that this argument is being floated long before any realistic possibility of such, I think it would become a pretty strong point against statehood.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
The important question about the situation of DC ceding the parts of the city that aren’t directly involved in the federal government is, does Maryland WANT to take on what is mostly a poverty-stricken population in some very high-crime neighborhoods?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
Let me guess. You haven’t been to Washington lately.
Americans have a long history, dating back to the first Constitutional Convention, of assuming that Canadians would join the US just as soon as the offer was extended. Surprise, surprise, we’ve got our own thing going. If in the future, there is some sort of breakup of Canada, you’re much more likely to see anywhere from 2 to 6 independent nations rather than 10 new states.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
What would be a good source for more information about the party political shifts in Alaska and Hawaii?
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t know of any works like that involving Alaska, but this book contains some material as to the shift in Hawaiian politics.
[QUOTE=Antonius Block]
The Baarle-Nassau/Baarle-Hertog area near the Belgium / Netherlands border(s!) is probably the most complicated case of national non-contiguity.
[/QUOTE]
The India-Bangladesh border is arguably worse. Check the map.
[QUOTE=Shecky]
I, for one, would like to see a North California and a Long Island State.
[/QUOTE]
The Long Island Project … But who gets manhattan? We Obviously take Brooklyn and Queens.
[QUOTE=severus]
The India-Bangladesh border is arguably worse. Check the map.
[/QUOTE]
Note that this is a pre-1971 map (it refers to Bangladesh as “Pakistan”). I suspect that the borders have been neatened up since the map was made.
[QUOTE=Governor Quinn]
I really don’t know of any works like that involving Alaska, but this book contains some material as to the shift in Hawaiian politics.
[/QUOTE]
Well, okay. I’d also be satisfied with a little bit of elaboration on your Post No. 13. What were the pre-statehood political situations in Alaska and Hawaii and what happened to change them?
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Note that this is a pre-1971 map (it refers to Bangladesh as “Pakistan”). I suspect that the borders have been neatened up since the map was made.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m wrong. According to Wikipedia the West Bengal/Bangladesh enclaves/exclaves still exist.
[QUOTE=Superfreaknduper]
The Long Island Project … But who gets manhattan? We Obviously take Brooklyn and Queens.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll have Manhattan.
The Bronx and Staten Island, too…
[QUOTE=lalenin]
What about England? It has the right cultural background, and I can see that the right government might play up the “join the USA or the EU” angle for political purposes.
[/QUOTE]
I have a better idea.
You tear up your Declaration of Independance and ask us very nicely if you can return to the fold.
We *might * give it some thought, but don’t hold your breath.
Honestly, Yanks… 
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Well, okay. I’d also be satisfied with a little bit of elaboration on your Post No. 13. What were the pre-statehood political situations in Alaska and Hawaii and what happened to change them?
[/QUOTE]
Hawaii was politically controlled by the mostly Republican sugar planters. In the 50’s, territorial Democratic chairman John Burns was able to organize the plantation workers to turn the state Democratic.
To oversimplify, Alaska was basically Democratic until it discovered oil, then switched parties because the Democrats had the reputation of being anti-drilling.
When we were living in Hawaii, we heard from one old-timer about how elections were controlled. He said something about whereas you entered the booth alone and closed the curtain behind you, the pen or stylus or whatever you used was attached to a pole above by a cord. The Democrat and Republican choices were left and right on the ballot, or vice versa. Outside, they could see which direction the cord went and so knew how you were voting. You were in trouble if you did not vote “correctly.”
