The devolving super-nation states continues - Scottish independence draws nigh

[fastpat]

That Scotland will become an independent nation once again is almost a certainty, the question is now when. The English dominated British government is spending millions to stop it, all a waste.

If Scotland wants partition, the British cannot deny it


Many nations have prospered after gaining independence from their neighbours. Why should the Scots be different?

Simon Jenkins
Wednesday November 29, 2006
The Guardian

I think the word is panic. Last week the prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer, home secretary, defence secretary, trade secretary and Scots ministerial expatriates galore travelled in a posse north to a Labour conference in Oban, like a bunch of Spanish hidalgos racing back from the fleshpots of Madrid to quell a revolt in their home province.

Their objective was to suppress one man, Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National party. An opinion poll had shown support for Salmond's crusade, an independent Scotland, rising to 52% of the electorate. Those regarding themselves as Scottish had risen from half to three-quarters in 25 years, while those saying "British" had halved to just 20%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1959454,00.html

I say, bravo, Scotland.

[}{arlequin]

what's funny is that among china/korea/soviets/u.s. that you could pic from, you call the u.k. a "super-nation state" in the title LOL... the time when the sun never set on the british empire is long gone you know...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
what's funny is that among china/korea/soviets/u.s. that you could pic from, you call the u.k. a "super-nation state" in the title LOL... the time when the sun never set on the british empire is long gone you know...

You need to know more about the worldwide devolution of super-nation states, beginning with what the term actually means.

It is, in simple terms, an agglomeration of disparate nations into or under one government. Here, within the so-called United States, are at least four and perhaps five nations held together by the efforts of the US government. That's one of the primary purposes of the national debt. The northeastern states dominate the rest. It's easy to see that the southwestern states are largely hispanic, and if not for immigration similar to that by Russians into Latvia and Lithuania, they would be more monolythic than they are now.

Similarly, the northwestern states; Washington, Oregon, possibly Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have more in common than they do with states outside their aggregate borders.

It's easy to see that the breakup of the United States into at least four autonomous regions, if not sovereign countries, would be a plus.

The same applies to Scotland and Wales, as it did to Ireland over 80 years ago.

[}{arlequin]

i understand devolution (we learned that in toefl), as well as the concept of nation-states, but to call it "super" is a bit of a stretch for this application

by the way, you could just say 'break up' instead of the gradiose DEvolution. it's this kind of misdirected pomposity that oozes out of self-labelled 'global experts' and false economists. you get that often when you just cut and paste, or rely on, others' opinion

the uk is an advanced, well-developed nation, but calling it a superpower is a bit ambitious