Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

I really want the Union to stay together. I feel the exact same way about Wales, although since I have a lot of family there, I have a stronger investment. The UK has a strong shared history. Through two World Wars, and even Bonaparte, a strong united UK has bennefitted the people of the isles.

The Economist also wrote an excellent article about how the Scottish economy would fare without the UK, and it isn't pretty. Especially in light of what's happened to Ireland, strong nation-states will weather to current crisis much better than small ones.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

KingFisher posted:

Is there anything that can be done to help this effort?
I am a huge fan of devolution in as many states as possible.
Free Scotland, Free Wales, Free Cornwall.

I will stand for the independence of any people, with any ideology from any larger state. We need 1000 countries, let local control bloom.

I cannot disagree with this viewpoint enough. If 4000 years of human history, and the last 200 especially have shown us anything, it's that a strong nation-state is economically and politically the strongest. People should be able to look past tribalism and regionalism just like they look past the caste system and sectarianism.

As much as regional interests should be respected, there is no reason to weaken the state as a whole! Scotland, Wales and Cornwall have a tiny fraction of the economic, politcal, and military power of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales already have strong and active parliments, it isn't like they're being run from Whitehall anymore.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

KingFisher posted:

Why not just have one big world government then?
You see my goal is to weaken the state, I want 1000 weak states.
I want my Cyber punk mega corporate future.

Having a lot of tiny, weak states is as absurd as a united world government.
Neither one would represent the interests of citizens as well as a nation.
Scotland has the benefit of UK tax revenue being shared, without the UK, and with a smaller government and tax base, and with less foreign investment, Soctland would be less able to provide for it's populace.

That's without even touching on the loss of influence on the international scale, such as G8, UN Security Council and NATO membership.

Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 15, 2012

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

Peel posted:

Two otherwise identical nations might or might not do better as one larger nation, but that neglects the fact that England is full of Tories.

I know, and it sucks, but the Tories won't always be in power. Italy and Germany don't fracture every time an unpopular government is elected.

A divided UK will have longer lasting consequences than anything the Tories could do.

Kin posted:

I don't know the ins and outs of British Empire history, but I have been wondering how much influence Scotland, Wales and NI have had historically on the conquests of The British Empire and its "clout". I'm assuming that while many good soldiers have come from all of the countries many of British Military actions have come at the behest of Westminster or whatever English Parliament was in power, no?

In Empire (a fantastic book that I highly reccommend) Niall Ferguson points out that the majority of East India Company men in India were Scots, followed closely by Irishmen. The Scots were on the frontlines of the Empire from the very start and were very influential.

E: Since Kin expressed interest, I'll slap on a little blurb about Empire since it really is a special book. Niall Ferguson makes understanding something as massive and comlicated as the history of the British Empire enjoyable, and does his best to make the issue apolitical. It is also a very very readable book.The prose is entertaining and informative, and the footnotes are excellent if you want to go a bit deeper. Terms and concepts are explained as they come up, and there's no presumption of prior knowledge or a prior position on Imperialism. It's pretty bad

I found the relevent section of the book, and included a quick blurb. There are quite a few pages on the involvement of the Scots, which was something I didn't know before. For example, Scots were vastly more likely to intermarry with natives, and their treatment of them was very different than the English approach, on the whole.

Empire, p. 33 posted:


In the 1750s little more than a tenth of the population of the British Isles lived in Scotland. Yet the East India Company was at the very least half-Scottish. Of 249 writers appointed by the Directors to serve in Bengal in the last decade of Hastings's administration, 119 were Scots. Of 116 candidates for the officer corps of the company's Bengal army recruited in 1782, fifty-six were Scots.


Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 16, 2012

  • Locked thread