The UK is an artificial political construct and will eventually die a natural death when it is no longer required. The UK has never been a total unitary state, even William 1 felt obliged to farm out the governing of his conquered realms to various barons.
The country was held together by fear of the outside more than love of each other.
If the UK central government had any foresight it should of introduced meaningful regional government years ago.
As the EU strengthens its powers and evolves into a federal union what need is there for a Westminster, Paris, Madrid etc? The EU will represent the regions not some medieval political constructs.
When the peoples of the now UK feared a Napoleon, etc. then there was an argument for a UK. We live in a different world today.
Erm, maybe because the constituent parts of the UK want to remain together? It’s only artificial if there isn’t an emotional commitment to the Union, which there is, despite the calls for Independence.
Who says the EU should represent ‘the regions’ all supposition. This isn’t Yugoslavia in the Atlantic.
There is some emotional commitment to the Union. There is also a strong fierce emotional commitment to an identity which is not British. I asked my husband to rank his identities once, and it went #1 Welsh, #2 British, #3 European. I know quite a few people who put British as #3. I can’t speak for Scotland, but I imagine it’s the same. You seem to have real trouble believing that this could be so. I suggest talking to actual people from Scotland, Wales, and NI and really listening. I think you’re letting your own identity cloud your peceptions.
The ‘regions’ of the UK are natural national entities. The UK is an artificial transnational entity cobbled together out of past political expediency. The UK as such served a historical purpose, it increasingly no longer does and will, as we witness today, wither away.
Many UK institutions operate on a regional basis. It is a more ‘natural’ way of doing things.
In any case, in a one-ethnicity-per-unit federation, you couldn’t have Scotland, since it has been multi-ethnic since its inception. Intially just Picts and Britons, then add the northern Angles and the Irish, then add the Norse, then take away the Picts, then take away the Britons, and finally, once the Angles have become Scots and the Irish have shifted to Gaels, take away the Norse.
(Edit: and, of course, it isn’t Scotland until the Irish arrive and Kenneth MacAlpine unites the Picts & Scots.)
I’m sorry but bringing up the Balkans in a thread about Scotland just seems like cheap scaremongering to me. There is no ethnic dimension in the Scottish-British conflict, the religious dimension has been greatly diluted, and both sides agree on negotiation and democracy rather than on… you know… killing one-another.
So… the UK is an artificial political construct. Let’s replace it with the EU!
I can’t work out if you’re arguing for more regional powers, or less. Seems like both.
That is true in my case. I identify as a Citizen of the Western Democratic World initially (after identifying first as a Human Being of course!) I hold views and experiences in common with people from the US, Canada, Aus, NZ, SA, Europe and to a lesser extent Japan, Korea and other industrialising countries. I then see my identity as Anglophone, then European, then British, then English and then New Scot.
Oh, and I fly the Cornish Flag as a snook to any extreme Nationalists- “What’s that flag mate?”
National identity is not Ethnic identity. I am almost 100% Ethnic English/Welsh/Irish with only one Scottish 7g grandparent, but the longer I live in Scotland, the more Scottish I feel and the more I identify with a particular Scottish way of life and thinking. It is even beginning to affect my speech and writing now as I use Scottish terms and ideas without thinking.
When we moved here I used to skip over much of the Scottish News and specific TV programming- now I seek them out first. Times change as do identities.
What you’re describing is what I mean by ethnic identity. It’s defined by how a person expresses his or her own culture. It’s not genetic and has nothing to do with heritage, which is the ethnicity and / or nationality of your ancestors (beyond living memory, both usually have to be guessed at by names and locations). I’m about 10% Anglophone Scot and 15% English by heritage, but that has nothing to do with my own ethnicity, since my ancestors emigrated.
Ethnicity requires some historical roots in that community. I am talking about personal and social identity within a culture where your own experience influences how you self identify and how others identify you. Etnically I am southern and Western British, but culturally I have tendencies toward USA culture I I was educated in the US) and more recently Scottish culture.
“An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a social group of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience.[1][2] Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language (dialect), or ideology, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.”
Well if we’re doing anecdotal: I’m #1 British and then a distant #2 European. If pushed I will say “I was born in England”. I’m the annoying person that corrects people when they call me English.
I’m just highlighting the “or” three words after your bolded “ancestral”—someone born in Scotland to Nigerian parents is nationally a Scot, and of Nigerian heritage. Their ethnicity (Scottish, Nigerian, both) is going to depend on how they live their lives. Ethnicity and ancestry usually go hand in hand, but they don’t have to. Adult immigrants find it difficult to change their ethnicity, but they usually go some way towards aquiring a second ethnicity. It depends a lot on how their new group receives them.
Anyway, you’re right, I should have defined my terms a bit better in the first place.
How do I have real trouble believing this so? I have a similar ranking system, but I’m aware enough to realise we will all lose something if Scotland sets a precedent of being independent from the UK.
You don’t appear to credit that people genuinely think the costs are less than the benefits. I don’t think anyone denies there are costs, but you haven’t given much evidence that you recognize the benefits.
Everyone weighs them differently, of course. As I’ve said, I think on balance the UK is better off staying together, and I suspect that will be the end result, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see the counter-argument. You seem to be unable to see it. My apologies if I’m reading you wrong: it could be that you see it, but simply disagree.