3 ms·
> Fracturing is almost always a bad idea and bigger countries almost always do better than the smaller ones. This is demonstrably false: roughly half of the to
by diakritikal 10y ago
> Fracturing is almost always a bad idea and bigger countries almost always do better than the smaller ones.
This is demonstrably false: roughly half of the top ten countries ranked by standard of living and quality of life are small European nations about the same size as Scotland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
- ghaff 10y agoThere's a much better argument for it historically because being a small country tended to end up getting you invaded or otherwise subservient to one or the other of your bigger neighbors. But that really an issue with most European countries today. Larger/richer countries still tend to have more control over their own destinies but that doesn't necessarily translate to quality of living standards.
- jonathansizz 10y agoI think neverminder meant that, amongst countries that separate, the larger of the new countries will generally be better off than their smaller neighbour. Your list doesn't address this point. Examples would include Pakistan-Bangladesh; Czech Republic-Slovakia; and Sudan-South Sudan.
- legulere 10y agoYour own list has a counterpoint: Bangladesh has a better HDI than Pakistan. Republic of Ireland also has an higher HDI than the UK and they were in much worse state than the UK when they became independent.