Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

June 29th, 2006

Tags

, , , , , ,

Comments

17 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Devolution Caravan Keeps Moving

Oh ye of little faith! Microstates are coming. In the Balkans, you could write it off as Yugoslav leftovers. In Spain, perhaps some legacy of the Spanish Civil War. Today it’s Scotland. And the trend is becoming clearer by the day. The only question is who’s next!

IJ pointed out the following. Looks like I missed this, good thing our readers have a sharp eye!

A Bill To

Provide for electors in Scotland to petition the House of Commons for a referendum on whether Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:””?

There may be a lot of welcoming parties at the United Nations soon. The middle men are being cut out. The real question here is, who gets the North Sea oil? May be a helpful precedent for Iraq actually!

NOTE: More excellent commentary on microstates and devolution here, at Cynical Nerd.

Comments to this entry

Dan Nexon
June 29, 2006
10:19 pm
A quick note of clarification: I took a great deal more issue with the "neo-medievalism" metaphor than with the claim concerning devolution. If you look closely, my post conditionally affirms it.
Dan Nexon
June 29, 2006
10:22 pm
PS: the "middlemen" aren't being cut out; the trend points to more middlemen operating on a smaller scale.
Chirol
June 29, 2006
10:27 pm
Dan: True, my apologies. As to your second comment, I guess it depends how you see it. National governments are getting cut out in favor of smaller national governments. But I was referring to middle men as national governments of nations that have other cultural and linguistic minorities in them, concentrated in one geographic area, i.e parts that could break away. But you're right, it's just a smaller scale of national government.
Dan tdaxp
June 29, 2006
11:23 pm
What will be the impact for Ulster? Even if she stays with the Union, that'd be one funky map...
Kenneth
June 30, 2006
12:11 am
Wow, Chirol. This trend of yours seems to be unfolding rather rapidly.
Catholicgauze
June 30, 2006
12:19 am
"Don't forget Bolivian protest babes who want autonomy...":http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2756
Curzon
June 30, 2006
3:19 am
The North Sea oil will be gone by the time Scotland gets to seriously think about independence, so that's one less thing to worry about.
Kirk H. Sowell
June 30, 2006
4:33 am
The most dangerous example of this trend, from the U.S. point of view, is in Hawaii. There is a movement - and a bill in the Senate - to form a new race-based government there for descendants of natives. The overwhelming majority of Hawaiians of course want to stay fully within the United States. I don't think it will pass, but what a mess it would be if this got through Congress.
Curzon
June 30, 2006
4:42 am
I wonder how such a dual government could even be constitutional. Once a US state is a state, it falls under the umbrella of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...


(Not that I needed to remind you of that, Kirk.) Unless if they set up some model based on the Indian nation treaties...
Lexington Green
June 30, 2006
6:42 am
I think we will see a fair amount of this under the umbrella of the EU, where it is relatively safe to try it. Montenegro can figure on Serbia being deterred from using force, probably.

However, moving to a more localized and smaller and weaker national government, but still under the EU is not really "cutting out the middle man." It is submitting to a remote and unaccountable government, which you will now face with less bargaining power.

I think the Scotland bill is a gesture, not likely to come to fruition any time soon. Next year is the tricentennial of the 1707 Act of Union that created the United Kingdom, btw.

I'd like to see Belgium break up, which the Flemmish nationalists are pushing for. My only concern is that this might adversely impact the Miss Belgium competition. They had a really great run for a while there, 2002-04. It's not much of an achievement, but Belgium is a pretty retarded country.
cynical nerd
June 30, 2006
6:51 am
Dear Chirol:

Thanks for linking our piece. First time here, you have a nice blog.

Lexington Green: The breaking up of Belgium is accelarated by the immigrant troubles - there have been several skirmes with Muslim immigrants in recent days - yesterday a Moroccan "youth" was arrested on charges of abduction and rape of two girl children. Several Flemish mayors have banned the head-to-two burkha as opposed to the Francophone Wallonia. In cities like Antwerpen, many Jewish groups have aligned with the Far Right Vlams Party against in what they perceived as the immigrant threat. Now Vlams Pary is a significant politcal force.

cheers,
Chirol
June 30, 2006
8:01 am
Kenneth: Indeed, though it's not my trend per se. Just a topic of interest! Dan at the Duck has been following too.

Kirk: I don't think the US would even consider letting something like this happen so I wouldn't worry. Washington isn't a fan of letting states seceed. My home state learned the hard way back in the 1860s!

Lex: Indeed. As I noted in previous posts, it's the EU that's allowing this. Similar trends in regions without any kind of overarching security structure are very dangerous and are likely to make things worse.

In Europe, I'd definitely be watching Belgium, North Italy, obviously Kosovo, and France (like Corsica).
IJ
June 30, 2006
12:48 pm
Who gets the North Sea oil? No doubt any negotiations on independence will settle land and sea borders for all the devolved regions.

In the event that Westminster refuses the regions a vote on independence, they could always turn future elections into a protest vote. Westminster's attitude to global order, eg the United Nations system and the European Union, may be an important factor.
Dan Nexon
June 30, 2006
4:02 pm
Curzon: current Supreme Court doctrine, I believe, is that Article V, Section 4 is non-justicable. I'm not sure that the Hawaiin proposal would comprise, anyway, a non-republican form of government.
Dan Nexon
June 30, 2006
4:02 pm
Typo: Article IV.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Southern Italy Would Turn into Pakistan
June 30, 2006
5:56 pm
[...] The following is part of an email exchange between Chirol and a very close Italian friend. This friend worked at the polls in the recent referendum and had this additional information to add since microstates and devolution have been all the rage recently. The title of the post is a rather humorous comment from him on what would happen if the North became autonomous. [...]
IJ
July 1, 2006
4:23 pm
_Who gets the North Sea oil? No doubt any negotiations on independence will settle land and sea borders for all the devolved regions._

"vast amounts of energy are thought to be locked in regions that either overlap the boundaries of consumer nations or are in disputed territory, as in parts of the South China Sea. Building a forum for discussing and addressing such issues could both enhance international stability and lead to new energy development" "Bold idea for energy woes: global cooperation":http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0424/p02s01-wogi.html