Owl, when you find me on the same side as maniac and our Far Eastern Europeans you know there's something wrong. For example, would you advocate splitting up Germany? Because just today I made
a joke that we should have given the Soviets West Berlin, and in exchange they'd have to take Bavaria.
Germany's a difficult one because it's so successful, largely because it is one of the few examples of a working Federation in Europe, one that countries like Russia and France and the UK should take heed of. I think that still on balance, as difficult as it is, I would split up Germany into its constituent "nations", Bavaria being one of them; one problem is that I can't tell if Germany really has that many constituent "nations" anymore besides, say, the Lusatians and Bavarians. But then why would Bavarians be a nation and Schwabians wouldn't? This is why I don't tend to bang on about Germany that much and the need to split it up - the Germans are remarkably good at treating their ethnic minorities and constituent nations with respect. If only France could do the same.
In the long run an international federation (as I think I actually want, a kind of EU for the entire world rather than being focused on one subcontinent) would be able to integrate its constituent parts better if they are smaller.
And how do you cope with areas with mixed population?
This is a very difficult question, and one of the examples of why I don't think "states" work every time. Areas are, however, usually "ethnically mixed" because one country conquered another at one time or another and left bits of itself behind. In the example of Ukraine, an ethnically mixed nation, I would make take the native nationality of Ukrainian and try to promote it while giving equal rights to Russian. Ukrainian language and culture would be encouraged to come back in the East, given that that area was historically Ukrainian-speaking, and eventually the country may become more homogenous or bilingual. In the case of an African nation full of different tribes, great care would need to be taken to ensure that all the tribes get equal representation and no tribe is dominant over the other. Those are examples of where "nations" and "states" aren't compatible.
Sure, you talk about democracy, essentially describing a modern state - but why does this not apply to homogenous areas? Or rather, why make the distinction if you're going to give them the same system anyway?
Ideally it wouldn't be the same system. In Scotland's case I would love for our country to be a Federal state with equal power devolved to its regions. I advocate national independence wherever possible and federalism wherever it is impossible.
What you really want, deep down, is federalism. A system in which Western Ukrainians can coexist with Eastern Ukrainians, Serbs with Bosniaks, Germans with Bavarians. And why not apply the same system on higher levels?
My ultimate goal would be world-federalism, yes. A federation of independent states. Perhaps the Communist in me would seek a world-union of Socialist Republics where money can be abolished and we can live in a truly Communist society where we can all enjoy lasting peace, call each-other "comrade" and "friend" rather than "sir" and build space rockets together or whatever it is we'd do. That was the belief of
John MacLean, an early-20th century Scottish nationalist and Marxist. I just think that in order to achieve that we need to break things down into their constituent parts as best we can first. The current system of large nations and "federations" leaves us with countries that are simply too big not to be ambitious.
In short: Why not separate the nation from the state, eradicating the original sin of the long 19th century?
The trouble is that sometimes when we try to separate the nation from the state, such as with the USSR, we actually create situations where one nation rules another. That seems almost unavoidable, I don't know how we can get around that using the current system.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1783330 times)