2 ms·

It's not bad, just anachronic. That was in the 12th century. Now there are >7bn of people on this planet, and greater challenges, economic or otherwise. Let's j

by petre 5y ago

It's not bad, just anachronic. That was in the 12th century. Now there are >7bn of people on this planet, and greater challenges, economic or otherwise. Let's just say you'd either want to be banking other more powerful countries' money or gold reserves, like Switzerland, or have some kind of nuclear capability for protection against bullies, like Israel or North Korea do, maybe put on a show once in a while.

roenxi 5y ago
That isn't really a strong argument for why it is necessary and proper for Scottish people to be ruled from London. The idea of local Scottish people governing themselves doesn't seem horrifying. They could team up with England for defence purposes and share an army without the rest of the administrative baggage. If the argument against city states is that they're uncommon, that isn't much of an argument. English global colonialism and hegemony has been pretty common for the last 200 years and it is a stretch to say it is the desirable equilibrium. A globe made up of small city states might be more pleasant to live in. Similarly, "if England doesn't rule you, someone else will!" is ... not a strong argument if they aren't happy with English rule.
- petre 5y ago
  I see what you mean, however the Scots have their own Parliament and two governments (Scottish and UK). They could transfer some more power from the UK government to Scotland through further negotiations or proclaim independence. The latter however has its disadvantages, as the supposedly newly created Scotland would not be part of any union and then there's also the case of the UK's nuclear weapons controlled by the London government. Thus I personally believe negotiation is the better option, especially now that the London government is in a weakened position due to 'brexit going badly'. https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/devolution/ https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/... I doubt a country teams up with other countries for defence purposes as long as they don't also share the defence costs, the exception here being the US. Of course, this comes at the price of hosting US troops and installations operated by the US on foreign soil and also becoming a potential target to US enemies. This also doesn't quite work if for instance Texas were to secede from the US and then asked for US protection if it got attacked by Mexico. The US would probably occupy Texas and told them to shut up and put up with the US military or the federal government in charge of running the show. What other options does Scotland have, ask France for military protection? Because the EU does not yet have an army.

by petre 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

That isn't really a strong argument for why it is necessary and proper for Scottish people to be ruled from London. The idea of local Scottish people governing themselves doesn't seem horrifying. They could team up with England for defence purposes and share an army without the rest of the administrative baggage. If the argument against city states is that they're uncommon, that isn't much of an argument. English global colonialism and hegemony has been pretty common for the last 200 years and it is a stretch to say it is the desirable equilibrium. A globe made up of small city states might be more pleasant to live in. Similarly, "if England doesn't rule you, someone else will!" is ... not a strong argument if they aren't happy with English rule.

petre 5y ago
I see what you mean, however the Scots have their own Parliament and two governments (Scottish and UK). They could transfer some more power from the UK government to Scotland through further negotiations or proclaim independence. The latter however has its disadvantages, as the supposedly newly created Scotland would not be part of any union and then there's also the case of the UK's nuclear weapons controlled by the London government. Thus I personally believe negotiation is the better option, especially now that the London government is in a weakened position due to 'brexit going badly'. https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/devolution/ https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/... I doubt a country teams up with other countries for defence purposes as long as they don't also share the defence costs, the exception here being the US. Of course, this comes at the price of hosting US troops and installations operated by the US on foreign soil and also becoming a potential target to US enemies. This also doesn't quite work if for instance Texas were to secede from the US and then asked for US protection if it got attacked by Mexico. The US would probably occupy Texas and told them to shut up and put up with the US military or the federal government in charge of running the show. What other options does Scotland have, ask France for military protection? Because the EU does not yet have an army.