Found this on an English nationalist forum... couldn't have put it better myself:
Scandinavia, a region of five countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland), has seen its constituent countries form different unions with each other from the Middle Ages to 1918, until Iceland became the last independent nation. They share similar cultures and similar languages, but have remained separate sovereign nations ever since.
So for a lot of people, a possible break-up to the United Kingdom is something they fear, believing this would cause many problems and challenges. The prospect of this raises many questions. However, one only has to look towards Scandinavia to realise all these questions have already been answered:
Would the home nations be economically viable?
The Scandinavian nations top all tables on average wealth per person. Size of country has no bearing on economic success. No reason why the home nations can’t be economically successful too.
Isn’t Britain stronger together? Wouldn’t England, for example, have a lower standing in the world than Britain?
If enjoying a high standing in the world means participating in numerous foreign wars, who needs that? Does a Swede, who lives in a wealthy nation, and has not seen his country fight a war for 200 years, envy our status? I seriously doubt it. Perhaps countries like the USA, Russia and China dominate world markets, but their citizens don’t enjoy the same wealth per person as in the Scandinavian countries. And if a lower world standing also means not sending men into space or topping an Olympic medals table – then I can live with that.
Would there be passport/border controls between the home nations?
No. There are no border controls between the Nordic countries.
Many Scottish people have relatives in England and vice versa. Doesn’t this make independence difficult?
Not when there’s free movement of people between nations as per Scandinavia.
What would be the constitutional position with the monarchy?
In Scandinavia, some countries are kingdoms, some are republics. It’s up to each home nation to decide their constitutional position.
Wouldn’t there be problems if England was a member of the EU, but Scotland and Wales weren’t?
Denmark and Sweden are in the EU, but Norway isn’t, and there are no problems.
And wouldn’t it be difficult for Scotland and Wales economically, when they have a much larger economic neighbour in England?
Hasn’t affected Denmark, who share their border with Germany.
Would the break-up of Britain lead to problems with security? Especially if England has an independent Scotland on its northern border?
Why? Is there a problem with security in Scandinavia? Is England likely to do something that will prompt an invasion of a foreign army? If Scotland did, would that automatically mean this army would move onto England? Even in the dark days of WW2, when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark, this didn’t spread to Sweden.
But on a small island, there must be issues where there needs to be co-operation?
Indeed, and this is true in Scandinavia. However, these issues are dealt with by the Nordic Council, without impairing any of the nations’ sovereignty.
I don’t know if I’ve listed all of the questions regarding this issue, but I’m sure if you need an answer – look to Scandinavia.
Northumbrian - Newcastle upon Tyne
It's time we started to talk about the Scandinavianisation of Britian and not allow the Brit Nats to scare people with silly words like the 'Balkanisation of Britain'. We can create an island of mutual respect and cultural plurality... what's so extreme about that?
Posts
