Yasna wrote:The point is that Britain is all too eager to throw around its military weight to protect perceived interests around the world.
Probably - and so is every other great power that ever existed. Blame the people in Westminster for that, not Scotland.
No one is asking you to give a fuck. But I myself don't think it's very civilized or wise to trample over weaker countries' interests just because they aren't a big geopolitical player (generally speaking).
I'm not advocating doing that, though. I think it's Argentina's irrational preoccupation with a couple of tiny islands that is uncivilized and unwise. I really don't see how they are all that important to their national interest in the long run.
There's a third option. Argentina forcefully reclaims the islands.
They tried that once, remember? It didn't go so well.
Wishful Learner wrote:As much as I'd rather the UK focus on its domestic affairs instead of spending money we don't have fighting wars we're never going to win, I don't want Scotland to leave, and I really don't think Britain has that much say in world affairs anyway without having to go to the US for support. The British people in general are slightly deluded that Britain is still up there on the world stage, but I'm really not sure how Scotland leaving would damage us any more apart from economically.
IpseDixit wrote:I don't really get the "Britain power dilution" thing. To me it doesn't seem that Britain still counts so much geopolitically. Its empire has gone and as for the Commonwealth... does it really have any political influence? Of course Britain is still a very important economy and the City of London has a lot of financial power... but it's not an empire anymore. The countries which would need a power dilution are other in my opinion.
Britain may not be a superpower anymore, but it is still a great power, with one of the world's largest economies, militaries, and nuclear stockpiles, as well as a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It has a lot of influence for such a small country, culturally and politically. (Eg. the Commonwealth.)
IMO, trying to achieve balance by weakening strong countries and dividing them territorially is a recipe for disaster. There always have been and always will be countries that are bigger and stronger than others. The best thing to do is have a balance of great powers so no one country can dominate the rest. (Or, the world since 1991.)
WishfulLearner wrote:Trident, our nuclear weapon's programme, is based on the Scottish coast, so that would be something to sort out in terms of defense for the UK and Scotland.
That is a good point, but I'm guessing it would be a precondition to arrange for the system to be moved elsewhere in the UK, or maybe for both countries to share it. (If you're right next to the UK, you're under their nuclear umbrella, so why not.)
Saim wrote:In the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands they are throwing their weight around to defend people who want to be British - no government is legitimate unless it respects the right to self-determination of it's citizens. That's democracy. Spain and Argentine are the one's guilty of imperialism and stupid nationalist posturing, not Britain. Note that these issues are raised during economic crises by Spain and Argentina as a way to create a foreign scapegoat.
I'm with you, man. Irredentism is just romantic nationalism.