Please elaborate on what you mean by Scots rule the UK instead of diverting the subject.Please, provide an example of an integrated democratically governed nation state in the modern era divided by the Atlantic, Pacific, or any other ocean.
Thanks
Please elaborate on what you mean by Scots rule the UK instead of diverting the subject.Please, provide an example of an integrated democratically governed nation state in the modern era divided by the Atlantic, Pacific, or any other ocean.
Thanks
Please elaborate on what you mean by Scots rule the UK instead of diverting the subject.
It's a joke, son.
Although given the origins of many a "British" political figure over the last couple of centuries...
Best,
Why the sneer quotes around the word "British"?
Do the Queens's subjects as individuals most often identify most readily as English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh, or as Britons?
See, it could be interesting, but realities being what they are, the "British" would balk at it. Ocean-spanning super states just can't address the realities that all politics are local. It's not the best example, but East and West Pakistan certainly demonstrate some of the problems, and at least they were on the same subcontinent.
Best,
He's just baiting you. Ignore it.
Oh, how can the United States hold together? Do you not know that the Rocky Mountains separate California from New York?
And the response to his own statement in post 40 would be The United States ... Hawaii is many thosands of miles across the Pacific from the rest of the country, as are the territories such as Guam.
And Alaska is separated from the rest of the US by Canada, I'm also failing to see his point?
Oh, how can the United States hold together? Do you not know that the Rocky Mountains separate California from New York?
Do the Queens's subjects as individuals most often identify most readily as English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh, or as Britons?
Because France and Germany have always allied with each other, compromising on Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland.
Continental Europe was outclassed industrially and agriculturally by Britain, New England, and the Great Lakes States, as well as the Chernozem-rich region of Russia. Germany only surpassed Britain in industrial output at the very end of the 19th century and never surpassed the US or Russia in agricultural output.
To be fair, I think the point TFSmith121 was trying to make is that there are no modern states that have transoceanic or noncontiguous sections where all the sections are demographically similar, rather than a bunch of smaller exclaves and islands that are dominated by the homeland. The real challenge would be having both side's national interests staying aligned enough that they don't naturally drift apart.
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who foresaw America as the future center of the British Empire before the revolution? That would be a fascinating series in attempting to keep both sides aligned enough that they cooperate and continue to stay united, and the constant compromises and oversteps both sides would take in maintaining it.
I think it depends largely on how the Empire is run. If it's reasonably centralised, I'd expected there to be a lot of friction over time, ending either with a split or with the real centre of power shifting to America. If it's more like a defensive league, whose members pool their military resources but run their own affairs pretty much unimpeded, I don't think there would be as much difficulty. After all, it's not like NATO is in danger of splitting up into an American and a European half any time soon.
But they are not separated by another power or an ocean, are they?
Again, provide an example where such a nation state has existed, much less lasted.
Best,
The glib answer is that the British Empire lasted until the 1940s, insofar as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa rallied to the defense of the Empire. I'm not sure why oceans are more problematic than a transatlantic railway. It would be interesting to compare how long it took to cross America in 1914 to the Atlantic Ocean...
Americans figured out there was no return on soldiering for the King in 1775, because London was unwilling to share power, much less transfer it; it took the Australians et al until 1945 to figure that out.
Best,
Hm. You can be as glib as you want, but I think the idea that London was "Unwilling to share power, much less transfer it" is really unfair, and certainly something Aussies, Kiwis, and Canucks would disagree with.