Why is splitting up European countries considered a bad thing?

[Rolfe]

It's nothing to do with Scotland. I merely reserve the right to consider it hilarious to want to hang on to the name of a defunct union state after it has become defunct.

Rolfe.

[Nessie]

Why, when the same monarch has been ruling over England, Wales, Scotland and different parts of Ireland since 1603?

[Rolfe]

England is only one kingdom.

It would be a blatant attempt to hang on to a past that is past, and arrogate to itself a status it no longer has. But as you say, nothing to do with us really.

I'm allowed to find it hilarious if I want to.

Rolfe.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by gumboot

No. This just isn't true. At all. The dominions that got independence after WW2 (such as New Zealand and Australia) didn't really want independence, and we only ratified the Statute of Westminster reluctantly; New Zealand 16 years after the Balfour Declaration (and to quite a lot of resistance) and Australia 11 years after the declaration. New Foundland didn't want independence at all so instead joined itself to one of the other colonies - Canada - in 1949.

For what it's worth, the date of New Zealand independence is 25th November, 1947. We don't celebrate it as "independence day" because it's not a meaningful date in our history, and our independence came gradually over hundreds of years (we only ended Westminster's power to legislate for NZ in 1986 and only abolished appeals to the Privy Council and created our own Supreme Court in 2004). Our national days are instead on the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (which celebrates the joining of New Zealand to the British Empire) and ANZAC Day (which is widely regarded as our first step towards being an independent nation).

1st January 1901 is not after WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia

The statute of Westminster did of course change things, but to claim we weren't independent before than is just plain wrong. And in any case, we ratified it in 1942 (backdated to 1939).

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

England is only one kingdom.

It would be a blatant attempt to hang on to a past that is past, and arrogate to itself a status it no longer has. But as you say, nothing to do with us really.

I'm allowed to find it hilarious if I want to.

Rolfe.

Fine, but just because Scotland leaves a united kingdom of England, Wales and now Northern Ireland does not mean the rest is no longer united. That would be represented in anew flag. I like this one

[Rolfe]

That's rather nice actually. Though I know Irish people who dispute the use of the cross of St Patrick in that context.

Rolfe.

[Dcdrac]

Seems David Hume certainly saw the need to go beyond sovereign state boundaries and was not constrained by them....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...aries-justice#

[Rolfe]

I don't think there's anything contentious in that notion.

Rolfe.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's rather nice actually. Though I know Irish people who dispute the use of the cross of St Patrick in that context.

Rolfe.

Maybe a red hand of Ulster in the top right corner and ditch the St Patrick's cross.

[Rolfe]

Yeah, that would go down a real treat!

Rolfe.

[malicus]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Maybe a red hand of Ulster in the top right corner and ditch the St Patrick's cross.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Yes, I am familiar with British history, thank you.

Good. Many people aren't.

Quote:

That doesn't mean the United Kingdom must cease to exist.

Well yes it kinda does.


[/quote]Okay, same example, but one of the original thirteen states. Makes no difference.[/quote]

Actually I don't know what the legal situation would be if one of the original states tried to dissolve the Union but I see a significant difference between 1 of 13 signatories deciding to leave and 1 of 2. It's pretty hard to be in a union of 1. And it's pretty hard to be in a Union with a state that no longer exists.

Quote:

Wrong. No Scotland no GB, but that doesn't exclude the Kingdoms of NI and England forming a "United Kingdom" and preserving the same short-form name. In fact, there's nothing to stop England/Wales continuing to call itself the "Kingdom of Great Britain". Scotland might not like it, but tough biscuit.

Forming one? Of course not. But it would be a newly formed Union. It can call itself whatever it likes.

Quote:

In reality the laws that will be passed to establish independence will also establish the new status of the UK. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting a country would vote to eject the Monarchy but not make any effort to establish a replacement form of government.

Any act of independence for Scotland would involve the new domestic and international status of both Scotland and the remainder of the UK, encompassing their relationship with each other, their future form of government, names, flags and general identity, and their status within all existing international frameworks such as the UN, EU, NATO, and so on.

Well in reality, yes. But in reality Scotland won't be excluded from the EU either and nor will there be border controls and immigration points on the border with England.

However, legally I don't see that there is anything to stop the Scottish government simply dissolving the act of Union and governing itself. It already has an alternative government set up.

Its simply inconsistent to demand that Scotland is regarded as a brand new state while rUK is not.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why, when the same monarch has been ruling over England, Wales, Scotland and different parts of Ireland since 1603?

I know she's getting on a bit now, but the Queen isn't that old surely?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I know she's getting on a bit now, but the Queen isn't that old surely?

Yes, she will be 410 this year

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Yes, she will be 410 this year

The wonders of L'Oréal, eh?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

However, the two kingdoms that united to form the United Kingdom were England and Scotland.

Ah... no. When England and Scotland united they became the Kingdom of Great Britain. The "United Kingdom" refers to the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (since amended to the Kingdom of Northern Ireland.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

1st January 1901 is not after WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia

The statute of Westminster did of course change things, but to claim we weren't independent before than is just plain wrong.

No it isn't, it's a fact. Until 1942, Australia was a Dominion of the United Kingdom, and not an independent country.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I can't think of anyone who would swap quality of life, economic prosperity, fairness, etc for a veto in the UN.

I bet North Korea would...

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by gumboot

No it isn't, it's a fact. Until 1942, Australia was a Dominion of the United Kingdom, and not an independent country.

Ridiculous claim. If you're going by something that trivial and silly why not go all the way and say we weren't independent until the passage of the Australia Act in 1986.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Ridiculous claim. If you're going by something that trivial and silly why not go all the way and say we weren't independent until the passage of the Australia Act in 1986.

You are not going far enough. We still have a GG that can sack a PM. So Australia is not 100% independent.

Edit. However has Australia passed its own legislation since 1901 and is not bound by legislation from other countries.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Oh, it's easy. You see, it's greedy and selfish to want something. So the only way to avoid being greedy and selfish is to make sure always to vote for the outcome you don't want.

Or something like that.

I think.

Rolfe.

There is perhaps no way to avoid it.
The important thing is to admit it.
If only to onesself.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I presume you are talking about the US government rather than the US people?

The Americans I speak to generally fall into the camp of either not understanding, not caring or supporting independence because it sounds like the right thing for a country to do.

I think the vast majority of people generally tend towards the view that nations should be independent as they cannot see a reason why their own nation would benefit from being subsumed into a neighbour.

I'm an American with no British, English, or Scottish ancestry, and I am supportive of Scottish independence. In fact, the more I read about it, the more supportive I am. I even wish there was something I could do, as little as it may be, to help bring it about.

The "Union" to me looks like a relic of the early stages of English imperialism. Scotland has its own unique culture and language. It has its own interests and its own oil. The government in London can't represent the interests of the Scottish people as well as the government in Edinburgh.

One thing I wonder is if Scotland does become fully independent, will the government of the UK remove Saint Andrews cross from the Union Jack flag? If the UK minus Scotland retains the cross, will Scotland have to petition London to remove it?

It would be even better if Cymru became independent as well. For some reason I just love seeing the once mighty British Empire get chopped into increasingly smaller bits. I admit I have a bias against English imperialism.

In the mean time, I'll do what I can to revive the Cornish language in Cornwall...

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by rjh01

You are not going far enough. We still have a GG that can sack a PM. So Australia is not 100% independent.

Edit. However has Australia passed its own legislation since 1901 and is not bound by legislation from other countries.

To me, as a clueless American, it looks like Australia can't have its own, unfettered national identity until it abolishes the monarchy and governor general and becomes a fully independent republic(it can still, however, remain a member of the Commonwealth/Betty Windsor Fan Club as I understand it). Sure, it is "independent", but symbolically it is still linked with its mother country through the monarchy and GG, even if the Parliament in London no longer has any authority in Australia.

I believe Australia should replace the monarchy with a president; a Resident for a President. No more decrepit House of Saxe Coburg Gotha do-nothing idiots. I think following the Republic of Ireland's example is a good idea. I know, I know Betty Windsor is a powerless figurehead. Yet one more reason to do away with the Crown.

Above all, this is more important than anything else - Australia has to reformulate their Vegemite. It tastes too British. They need to make it more Australian.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Fine, but just because Scotland leaves a united kingdom of England, Wales and now Northern Ireland does not mean the rest is no longer united. That would be represented in anew flag. I like this one

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-934MmB3Lvr...0/new-jack.png

I saw that post after I made my post about how the flag would be altered after Scottish independence. Cymru is part of Great Britain but why is the Dragon not in the Union Jack now? Every other constituent country is in the flag except Cymru.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I saw that post after I made my post about how the flag would be altered after Scottish independence. Cymru is part of Great Britain but why is the Dragon not in the Union Jack now? Every other constituent country is in the flag except Cymru.

Because Wales was incorporated as a part of 'England' before such things were considered. It is a principality, not a country, at least as far as this question is concerned.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I'm an American with no British, English, or Scottish ancestry, and I am supportive of Scottish independence. In fact, the more I read about it, the more supportive I am. I even wish there was something I could do, as little as it may be, to help bring it about.

The "Union" to me looks like a relic of the early stages of English imperialism. Scotland has its own unique culture and language. It has its own interests and its own oil. The government in London can't represent the interests of the Scottish people as well as the government in Edinburgh.

One thing I wonder is if Scotland does become fully independent, will the government of the UK remove Saint Andrews cross from the Union Jack flag? If the UK minus Scotland retains the cross, will Scotland have to petition London to remove it?

It would be even better if Cymru became independent as well. For some reason I just love seeing the once mighty British Empire get chopped into increasingly smaller bits. I admit I have a bias against English imperialism.

In the mean time, I'll do what I can to revive the Cornish language in Cornwall...

They are welcome to use it if they like. Perhaps we can swap it for something of theirs worth having.....like.....erm.......well.......they can just have it.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

In the mean time, I'll do what I can to revive the Cornish language in Cornwall...

Which illustrates to me the problem with splitting up European countries, which was the purpose of the thread. It is a terrible shame that Cornish died out, which it did. I'm a great fan of language, and it saddens me very much that languages disappear, and they are indeed disappearing around the world. I hope they are recorded as far as is possible, for no other reason than that I like language. But what purpose can recreating Cornish serve now? If it becomes a second language, it is at best a curiosity, and time would possibly be better spent learning other things. If it's intended as a first language, how does it help? I am reminded of Chaucer:

Quote:

In the preface to the Eneydos he told a story of some merchants going down the Thames. There was no wind so they landed on the Kent side of the river to buy food. ‘And specyally he axyed after eggys. And the good wyf answerde that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry for he also coude speke no frenshe but wold haue hadde egges and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstood hym wel’ [And he asked specifically for eggs, and the good woman said that she spoke no French, and the merchant got angry for he could not speak French either, but he wanted eggs and she could not understand him. And then at last another person said that he wanted ‘eyren’. Then the good woman said that she understood him well]

I wouldn't be in favour (even if it were a proposition) of forcing the world to speak English (or any other single language), but it seems perverse without cause to encourage people to learn an essentially dead language when they can already speak one that's understood around the world.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Rat

Because Wales was incorporated as a part of 'England' before such things were considered. It is a principality, not a country, at least as far as this question is concerned.

Well that's just screwed up. Especially when a Dragon as a national symbol beats a silly cross any day. But yes, that makes sense.

[L.Y.S.]

European nations need to take a hint from the U.S. and abandon their unitary forms of government. Unitary governments are terrible. They will never represent the interests of all ethnic groups involved. It took like 200 years for the U.K. parliament just to devolve the Scottish parliament. Are the Scots to wait another 200 years to have rights within a federation? I think not. What happened to the Soviet Union was a mere prelude to what will happen across Europe over the next few decades. (Speaking in terms of seperation of nations, not financial issues etc.)

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Rat

Which illustrates to me the problem with splitting up European countries, which was the purpose of the thread. It is a terrible shame that Cornish died out, which it did. I'm a great fan of language, and it saddens me very much that languages disappear, and they are indeed disappearing around the world. I hope they are recorded as far as is possible, for no other reason than that I like language. But what purpose can recreating Cornish serve now? If it becomes a second language, it is at best a curiosity, and time would possibly be better spent learning other things. If it's intended as a first language, how does it help? I am reminded of Chaucer:


I wouldn't be in favour (even if it were a proposition) of forcing the world to speak English (or any other single language), but it seems perverse without cause to encourage people to learn an essentially dead language when they can already speak one that's understood around the world.

I was being half-facetious about doing what I can do to revive Cornish(though it's sad that it is gone, and I agree it would be mostly pointless to learn Cornish), you know, for the purposes of "Cornish independence". Now of course that is an impossibility with the Cornish language extinct, due to the Cornish people being largely assimilated into the English. If only Cornwall was as mountainous as Wales or Scotland, this wouldn't have happened.

Geographic barriers like mountains tend to help preserve languages better than lowlands. The Basques are a good example of this, along with the linguistic hodge podge of the Caucasus mountain region.

Along with a lot of people around the world, I just love watching the heartland of the former British Empire getting dismembered, so long as it is done peacefully. I don't hate the English, but the British(mostly English) Empire still casts a long shadow on world affairs.

Besides this, I also favor splitting up other European countries, like Belgium, and Spain, because of my belief in freedom and self-determination. Getting the U.S, or world opinion, or the UN, or Bozo the Clown to support splitting up a country is very difficult, unless the country has behaved badly and the splitting is a form of punishment. Serbia is a good recent example of this, with Montenegro getting sliced off from it, then later Kosovo.

I think we'll also witness a lot more splitting in Africa, since the national borders established by outsiders very rarely coincided with any important ethnic, tribal or religious boundaries, unlike European national borders which are generally "better" though hardly perfect in this regard.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I'm an American with no British, English, or Scottish ancestry, and I am supportive of Scottish independence. In fact, the more I read about it, the more supportive I am. I even wish there was something I could do, as little as it may be, to help bring it about.

The "Union" to me looks like a relic of the early stages of English imperialism. Scotland has its own unique culture and language. It has its own interests and its own oil. The government in London can't represent the interests of the Scottish people as well as the government in Edinburgh.

England was not the only place with an upper class who wanted to make money from and explore the rest of the world. Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland have been fighting each other for ever. England, being the biggest has tended, but not always won. Considering government is by party, there are many in Scotland who are happier with a government from London with the party they want.

Quote:

One thing I wonder is if Scotland does become fully independent, will the government of the UK remove Saint Andrews cross from the Union Jack flag? If the UK minus Scotland retains the cross, will Scotland have to petition London to remove it?

No idea, but I doubt Scotland will have to petition London for anything as Scotland has settled on a national flag and so what what elsewhere does.

Quote:

It would be even better if Cymru became independent as well. For some reason I just love seeing the once mighty British Empire get chopped into increasingly smaller bits. I admit I have a bias against English imperialism.

The once mighty British Empire has always been made up of squabbling, fighting parts. I would like to see the USA become 51 different countries

Quote:

In the mean time, I'll do what I can to revive the Cornish language in Cornwall...

They have their own flag as well, a white cross on a black background

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I saw that post after I made my post about how the flag would be altered after Scottish independence. Cymru is part of Great Britain but why is the Dragon not in the Union Jack now? Every other constituent country is in the flag except Cymru.

Wales was just considered to be part of England and not a separate kingdom. As I said, our dynamic changes all the time.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

European nations need to take a hint from the U.S. and abandon their unitary forms of government. Unitary governments are terrible. They will never represent the interests of all ethnic groups involved.

I don't see the US as a very good example, especially representing minorities.

Quote:

It took like 200 years for the U.K. parliament just to devolve the Scottish parliament. Are the Scots to wait another 200 years to have rights within a federation? I think not. What happened to the Soviet Union was a mere prelude to what will happen across Europe over the next few decades. (Speaking in terms of seperation of nations, not financial issues etc.)

The Scots have the same rights as every one else. The Scots rule within the UK, they are not ruled by England. There is a very strong Scottish identity within being British and then European.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

To me, as a clueless American, it looks like Australia can't have its own, unfettered national identity until it abolishes the monarchy and governor general and becomes a fully independent republic(it can still, however, remain a member of the Commonwealth/Betty Windsor Fan Club as I understand it). Sure, it is "independent", but symbolically it is still linked with its mother country through the monarchy and GG, even if the Parliament in London no longer has any authority in Australia.

I believe Australia should replace the monarchy with a president; a Resident for a President. No more decrepit House of Saxe Coburg Gotha do-nothing idiots. I think following the Republic of Ireland's example is a good idea. I know, I know Betty Windsor is a powerless figurehead. Yet one more reason to do away with the Crown.

Above all, this is more important than anything else - Australia has to reformulate their Vegemite. It tastes too British. They need to make it more Australian.

An alternative to the above (which is very unlikely to happen) is for Australia to have its own monarchy. That then leaves the question of how Australia elect their monarchy. And what to do with the GG.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

Along with a lot of people around the world, I just love watching the heartland of the former British Empire getting dismembered, so long as it is done peacefully. I don't hate the English, but the British(mostly English) Empire still casts a long shadow on world affairs.

Not nearly as big a shadow as the US. I'm not convinced that you don't hate England, regardless of your feelings as to the English, since you seem to enjoy so the prospect of its decline. Do you look forward similarly to the decline of France, for example?

[Darth Rotor]

If you want independence, have a war.

Worked for the Slovenes
Worked for the Croats
Worked for the Bozniakz

It didn't work for Bossi and his crowd in Italy because they realized they didn't really want to fight, so no war, no split.

If you want independence, or a split, see how the Czechs and Slovaks figured it out.
They did in fact figure it out. (This has been mentioned before).

If you want a split, see how the Koreans figured it out.
They asked for help, so you can too. I remember a fine song
Cam ye o'er frae france

Jocky's gane to France and Montgomery's lady;
There they'll learn to dance: Madam, are ye ready?
They'll be back belyve belted, brisk and lordly;
Brawly may they thrive to dance a jig wi' Geordie!

Plenty of precedent for how this is done has been set.
Why do you think you have to make up something new?

Droll, that is.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Fine, but just because Scotland leaves a united kingdom of England, Wales and now Northern Ireland does not mean the rest is no longer united. That would be represented in anew flag. I like this one

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-934MmB3Lvr...0/new-jack.png

That looks like quite a good flag. Bit difficult to draw though and too obvious when it is flying upside down so:

a) even the pirates will know when it is flying upside as a distress signal.

and

b) it will be no fun for pedantic types.

[Soapy Sam]

What worries me is the thought that even now, some Scottish songwriter is composing a tentative version of some embarrassing and awful national anthem.
Perhaps we should hold a competition to lure them into the open, where we can take a clean shot.

Why are anthems so abysmal?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Why are anthems so abysmal?

True that, if you want a good one, get a professional to write it the music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_National_Anthem

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

What worries me is the thought that even now, some Scottish songwriter is composing a tentative version of some embarrassing and awful national anthem.
Perhaps we should hold a competition to lure them into the open, where we can take a clean shot.

Why are anthems so abysmal?

They aren't all abysmal. The Welsh one is pretty damn good.

Scottish music is wonderful, distinctive, unique and abundant. Why can't we find a decent anthem? I have no idea.

I'll stick with Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled until something better comes along. At least that has a pedigree. I sure as hell don't trust James MacMillan to write anything passable.

Rolfe.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

They aren't all abysmal. The Welsh one is pretty damn good.

Scottish music is wonderful, distinctive, unique and abundant. Why can't we find a decent anthem? I have no idea.

I'll stick with Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled until something better comes along. At least that has a pedigree. I sure as hell don't trust James MacMillan to write anything passable.

Rolfe.

Well I know this won't be your choice:
Alestorm - Flower Of Scotland.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I wouldn't be surprised if the band were drunk when they recorded that.

Definitely agree with what you say about the Welsh anthem though. It really illustrated how crap Advance Australia Fair was when we heard it next to Land Of My Fathers on the Wales Rugby tour last year.