Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If the Scots Secede, Who’s Next?
In yesterday’s New York Times, Scottish actor Alan Cumming, argued in favor of an independent Scotland as follows:
This is not about hating the English. It is about democracy and self-determination. Scotland is weary of being ruled by governments it did not vote for.
A question for Mr. Cummings and — for that matter — for my pro-independence friends here at Ricochet:
If the Scots secede from the United Kingdom, on what principle could they prevent the Orkney and Shetland Islands from seceding from Scotland, and taking with them the roughly a third of the active North Sea oil wells that lie within their waters?
Ruled by various Scandinavian dynasties until the sixteenth century, the Orkneys and Shetlands have undergone a very different cultural and political development from that of the rest of Scotland and — while most of Scotland now leans to the left — politics in the Orkneys and Shetlands are more centrist. Why should the people of those scattered islands be ruled by governments for which they did not vote, as they almost certainly would in an independent Scotland? Shouldn’t they also be entitled to democracy and self-determination?
Why, I repeat, shouldn’t the Orkneys and Shetlands secede from Scotland if Scotland secedes from the UK? Or Catalonia and the Basque country from Spain? Or Flanders from Belgium? Or Milan and the Po Valley from Italy?
Is there a limiting principle? Can you name it?
Image Credit: Eric Gaba (Sting – fr:Sting) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Published in General
Well of course. You get the government you deserve. And I think if the Scots vote for independence they will get it good and hard.
Germany has pretty well welded into one nation today. Call it the forge of WWI and WWII. Germans think of themselves less as Bavarians, Swabians, Hessians and Prussians than they do as Germans.
Italy really never experienced that hammering process. When they have, it tended to break them apart than weld them together. They have become more regional over time.
Seawriter
I am on the scottish side, even if they want to secede. Its hilarious to see English journalists in despair. The scots are more polite than their southern cousins, on average, and no stiff upper lip.
And This does not mean anything, like some said in tracked and targeted, after yes win scott walker will have to defend two countries.
You can totally do that, and if you have the ability to defend your country’s borders and enforce your country’s laws you’ll get away with it too.
I can only assume that you somehow got your hands on Wyoming’s aircraft carrier.
Why is Scotland the tipping point, rather than a bandwagon-jumper?
The partition of the USSR, the partition of Yugoslavia, the partition of Czechoslovakia, the independence of East Timor, the creation of North and South Sudan, the current and ongoing partition of Ukraine, etc, have a better claim to “tipping point” status, IMHO.
Heck, I think a pretty robust argument could be made that, far from being a tipping point, Scotland is merely the latest domino to fall since the end of the European colonial era, the partition of India being the biggest example thereof.
Yes, but as I pointed out in my update to my previous post, Germany today is quite a bit smaller than the Germany of 1871, and then there is the East- West German thing.
Prostitutes must be very nimble in a country of only two square yards.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
So, does that mean that after every future election in Scotland, the areas that voted for the opposition will be allowed to secede?
I’ll accept that modern Germans think of themselves as Germans first but…….Germany is a federation with the Landes retaining tremendous autonomy and internal control relative to other EU member nations. Germany is much closer to the type of federalism that existed in the USA before the post Civil War amendments.
In response to your points:
1. While Germany of 1914 (or 1871-1914) was larger than Germany of 2014, that was not because Germany (or the Germans) wanted it that way. It was due to the actions of other nations, as was the East-West partition.
2. East Germany-West Germany kind of underscores my point as to German rather than provincial. There was really no good reason for West Germany to reunite with East Germany other than national identity. East Germany was a bigger economic basket case than Scotland could become in worst case forecasts. Yet the two nations reunited and have made a go of it as one nation.
Seawriter
Pi (3.1416…) square yards. Math is hard.
The limiting principle is that of the southern succession in the US in 1861. Will a government use force to restrict the action. Obviously Britain wasn’t going to restrict Scotland from leaving. I don’t think any of those other countries you mentioned will all succession.
We’re hoping Tasmania, actually.
So you are saying that post WWI Germany did not want East Prussia, it was forced on them? Further you are saying that when Bismark brought the country together in 1871, they did not want any of the territory that is now Poland.
Sorry, but I’m not buying that. Recall that part of Hitler’s rational for invading Poland was that Germans needed “living room” to breed more Aryans.
Probably Texas.
Also remember that Germany gained territory when the Tsar’s government fell, then gave it back, and more, when Germany surrendered to the Allies. In 1940, that border looked highly negotiable to a lot more people than just Hitler.
Peter, you have forgotten the most important isle of them all – Islay. Orkney and Shetland just have oil (Well, that’s not quite true – Highland Park is one of the best all-around whiskies). Perhaps they could revive the Lordship of the Isles?
I spent a week in Orkney before graduation. There is certainly still a Norse influence on the culture, but it’s more Scottish than Norwegian.
I’m not sure that size has a lot to do with it. Hong Kong was tiny, but acted as a separate state for years with spectacular results. There are also some itty-bitty countries in Europe that do just fine.
My point exactly. Germans wanted the land that is now Poland. It was never forced on them “…due to the actions of other nations, “.
Yes three square yards not two, I stand corrected. I’m relieved I can probably avoid the prostitutes when I visit.
I cannot find the exact quote, but PJ O’Rourke once wrote something to the effect of its getting the point where people are going to declare the Republic of You and Me, and I’m not so sure about me
You might enjoy reading The Sovereign Individual.
I would look at the sub-continent too. It was the British Empire that made India a nation instead of a geographic area. Every time I read about politics in India I am struck by how tempermentally different are the different regions of India (most emphasized by the new Prime Minister). Westerners tend to think all of India is Bombay/New Delhi writ large. But they were independent/vassal states far longer than they were a unified polity. How do you think the British Raj ended up on top? Pakistan/Bangladesh was just a taste. Kashmir is just the tip of the iceberg of what could come, especially as almost all her neighbors would love to weaken India by encouraging secessionist activities (especially China).
Not those devils!!!
See what I did there?
True, but only because Great Britain could project enough power to keep the Chinese Communists at bay. Wasn’t it Thatcher (the Victor of The Falklands) who started the ball rolling toward giving up Hong Kong? As I recall, the Chinese basically said they wouldn’t renew the lease on the surrounding area, and they showed enough dragon’s claws to make the British Lion decide to exit graciously. If my memory is correct, Chris Patten was a wiley last governor who played a weak hand brilliantly for the benefit of Hong Kong.
Umm . . . are you saying the borders of 2014 Germany were borders Germany asked for? As I recall, Germany’s borders in 1919 and 1946 were not exactly the borders Germany wanted. They were forced upon Germany by conquering armies. Remember the conception of Germany that Germany had in 1914 was:
From the Maas to the Memel,
from the Etsch to the [Little] Belt.
This is considerably different than the Germany of 2014. It was not even the Germany of 1914, although I have to admit the Germany of 1933-45 gave achieving those borders the old college try.
So, yes. I am correct. The current borders of Germany were forced upon Germany. The Soviet Army, the United States Army, and the British Army being the primary actors in constraining Germany to accept those borders.
I suspect Germany is happy with those borders. Had Russia really cared to create mischief in the period 1991-2001 they should have given Germany Kaliningrad back, and then called for Poland to give back its German territories (and the former Soviet Republics of Beloruss and Ukraine to revert to their 1939 borders. (Fortunately, they were not imaginative enough to do that.) I am pretty sure Germany would not have wanted that can of worms opened.
Seawriter
In all this talk of more bits being cut from the Union Jack it’s worth noting that Gibraltar has long been fervent about remaining a colony of Great Britain. Spain has long wanted the rock back, but the locals there are like those in Ulster, they want the Union Jack. Of course Spain isn’t interested in giving Morocco Ceuta and Melilla…
Modern Germany’s borders are not in dispute because of the outcome of the war and because the regions which were severed from Germany were cleansed of ethnic Germans. In addition to those regions, fifteen million ethnic Germans in communities in Hungary, Transylvania and the Ukraine were also forced out, back to the land of the Germany we know today.