A rose by any other name…
The only one of those that was ever part of the UK was Ireland.
Well, when you are the most powerful empire the world has ever seen with the technological know-how to project power on a scale never seen before and you exist in a time of slightly more fluid morality, well…these things are going to happen. Countries are going to get invaded, civilisations are going to get their hair mussed and the seat of power is going to go on one fuck of a great building spree, and filling museums will be a breeze.
Was the British Empire a force for good or bad? Clearly both. Has it all been handed back? Yep, those that want independence can have it.
I have absolutely no idea what relevance this is to a discussion on the future of Scotland though. They were never “conquered” they entered into the union.
What point were you making again?
You do like a straw man argument.
The original statement was “Here’s a map of all the countries that have declared independence from the UK”. Nothing about being part of the UK.
It really helps if people address the post, not their interpretation of it.
Here’s CNN.com on the Obama Adminstration’s cautious response to the Scottish vote: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/politics/us-scotland-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Very interesting article here about why a yes campaigner switched to no: Ewan Morrison – YES: Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed to No | wakeupscotland
They didn’t declare independence from the UK because they were never part of it. They declared independence from the British Empire, which is a completely different situation.
Not really. They were governed by the UK. They declared independence. I’ll accept “they declared independence from the UK” as a reasonable and non-misleading summary.
It’s extremely misleading if it’s being used to compare Scotland’s status to that of a colony, and I believe that’s what Pjen is doing, based on previous discussion. In a more general context, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it.
Also, to say that all the colonies were “governed by the UK” is, at best, extremely simplistic and, at worst, false. For example, the American colonies were self-governed from the beginning, in that they made and enforced their own laws with little interference from the UK. Also, India and some other south Asian colonies were not, in practice, governed at all, but run by businesses.
Mostly, the UK didn’t care as long as it got its money.
Canada never “declared independence from the UK” and 1931 is not the accepted point in time at which Canada was considered independent.
Yup, the map is pretty dicky both in the sense that it treats all transitions to soveignty as “declarations of independence” and in the years that it picks for the various countries.
But it does nevertheless point to an important truth, which is the long-term worldwide trend of the empire ruled from London resolving itself into distinct sovereign nation-states, and Scottish independence very much fits into this category.
And it also fits into a consistent European pattern. Of the 26 member states of the EU, 13 did not exist a hundred years ago, and 2 of them, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, are only about twenty years old. Europe has been resolving itself into nation-states fairly steadily for about two centuries now, through the dissolution of multinational states and the integration of subnational states, and Scottish separation from the UK would fit squarely into this pattern.
Here though, it begs the question of whether that’s always a good thing. And the EU project could be described as a counter trend. Would Scotland ever jump at independence if there wasn’t an EU to jump into?
Oh, quite possibly not. But thats’ hardly an objection to Scottish independence, or to the EU.
Thinking about it, if you see the EU as a mechanism intended to avert the conflicts between nation-states that bedevilled Europe for so long, once that mechanism is established and successful (as I think it undoubtedly is by now) it eliminates or greatly reduces one of the main adverse risks of national independence, particularly for small nations - viz., military and economic vulnerability to a powerful neighbour. So I wouldn’t expect the establishment of the EU to halt the trend towards nation-states; if anything, it should be expected to sustain and intensify it. If Scottish secession becomes more feasible and more easily envisaged as a practical reality in the context of the EU, then you would expect Scottish secession to be more likely because of the EU.
What the EU does is to replicate the function of the multinational state of keeping the peace between, and reconciling the competing interests of, nations. To be blunt, if you’re in the EU, why would you also wish to be in the UK? (Unless, of course, you are England, and can dominate the UK.)
The EU is dominated by the big economies like Germany. Scotland will be a minnow.
It does not address security, for that we have NATO which is dominated by the US. The UK is a major contributor to European security. An independent Scotland will undermine the capability of an important NATO power contribute little in return.
Like most of the independence proposition, it is based on Scotland getting a free lunch from the UK, a grants from the EU and to freeload under the NATO security umbrella.
The UK, EU and NATO are not going to be welcoming an independent Scotland because it brings to them nothing but problems.
:dubious:
Germany doesn’t dominate the EU the way England dominates the UK. Scotland is always going to be a minnow in whatever pool it swims, but in the larger pool of the EU it there is more than one big fish, and there are plenty of other minnows, and the so the chance of Scotland being able to advance its interests against, say, Germany through co-operation with another large player, or several small ones.
Historically, the primary fear of any small nation is its immediate neighbours, and the EU has been extremely successful in allaying that fear. The EU has been phenomenally successful in creating and sustaining a state of affairs in which European powers simply do not go to war with one another in the way that was, for centuries, absolutely par for the course. The very success of the EU is highlighted by the fact that you instinctively assume Scotland’s security is predominantly dependent on NATO.
Why would that bother the Scots? It is not their role in life to make things easier for the English.
If there is an independent Scotland, the EU will want it in, not out. So, I think, will NATO. And it will be very much in the interests of rUK that Scotland should be in both organisations, so they will support its early entry. So I’m not seeing any downside for the Scots here, and they are the ones who will be voting tomorrow.
'The very success of the EU is highlighted by the fact that you instinctively assume Scotland’s security is predominantly dependent on NATO. ’
Why do you think that? You do realise that the EU has no military forces? It cannot provide any security which is a bit of a disadvantage is you live next to Russia.
‘Historically, the primary fear of any small nation is its immediate neighbours, and the EU has been extremely successful in allaying that fear.’
The rise of the bomber and the ballistic missile meant that threats could come from much further away than near neighbours.
The EU is no panacea. It is not a Federal government, it is simply an economic club intended to create a single market in Europe. This has some economic benefits, but it is still limited and it is facing severe difficulties co-ordinating the economies that use the Euro. Ask anyone in Greece or Spain.
The EU has internal tensions and nations that have nascent independence movements are not going to support and easy passage for Scotland into the EU. It requires a unanimous vote of all nations to accept a new member and there very good reasons for that not to happen for number of years. Spain and several other nations will be dead against it.
Scotland will find itself alone for number of years outside the EU trading in groats of some currency of its own. It will be in the economic doldrums and it will have to compromise on nuclear weapons if it wants to join NATO.
Most small countries are not independent at all. They are often highly dependent on others for a market for the goods and services and security. They exist because it is currently the fashion in international poltics and there are conditions that allow small countries to thrive. However, it has not always been so and the tide may turn again. Russias neighbours are very worried about that.
Scotland is on the front line of the NATO nuclear defence. Its stated policy is to remove nuclear weapons from its territory. I look forward to Alex Salmond trying to convince the USA that this is in everyones best interests.
The rest of the world has been very diplomatically quiet while Scotland has its big vote.
The EU has created an environment in which it is absolutely unthinkable that member states would go to war with one another, in the way that used to be routine.
Can you seriously not see how this contributes to security? Do you genuinely believe that security can only come from the barrel of a gun?
I’m not a big fan of unthinking.
George Friedman of Stratfor sees the Scottish independence bid as an extraordinary reflection of the importance of nationalism. Previously outsiders had perceived the Scots and English as, “…charming variations on a single national theme.” From the point of view or economic or security risks, separation makes little or no sense. So we are left with, “…the remembrance and love of history and culture…” or nationalism.
Furthermore, [indent]Scottish independence would transform British history. All of the attempts at minimizing its significance miss the point. It would mean that the British island would be divided into two nation-states, and however warm the feelings now, they were not warm in the past nor can we be sure that they will be warm in the future. England will be vulnerable in ways that it hasn’t been for three centuries.
… Nationalism has a tendency to move to its logical conclusion, so I put little stock in the moderate assurances of the Scottish nationalists. Nor do I find the arguments against secession based on tax receipts or banks’ movements compelling. For centuries, nationalism has trumped economic issues.
From: The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum (sub req) [/indent] Furthermore, Pandara’s Box is now open and not just in Britain: “The referendum will re-legitimize questions that have caused much strife throughout the European continent for centuries, including the 31-year war of the 20th century that left 80 million dead.” This applies regardless of the way the vote tallies.
I am perfectly well aware of the benefits of fair trade and a single market.
But that does no cut much ice with countries outside of that cosy EU system like Russia which certainly does believe in security through the barrel of a gun.
Do you not see the harm that the Scottish anti-nuclear policy is likely to have on the balance of power in Europe? How much the UK capability will be degraded?
That NATO security umbrella that all those small countries hide beneath? Eventually the US is going to get fed up with all these small EU states who refuse to pay their share for European security.
Defence is an insurance policy and the lessons of history are clear.
An independent Scotland will be a liability for the EU, NATO and the UK.
Though, I am sure Mr Putin will offer a warm hand of friendship.
Hmm, so how does Article 88-5 of the French constitution affect any independent Scottish accession to the EU? Will the French hold a referendum before Scotland is properly independent? Or only after independence from the UK, in which case Scotland is outside the EU at least for a period?