Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Over here in the UK the 1st minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, is pushing for Scotland to be independant from the Union. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of years now and it got me thinking about how countries are formed and borders decided. Is there a certain set of criteria that needs to be met before a decision is made? Is it a broad difference in language & culture, or a certain size? Having a keen interest in Viking history and read quite a few books on the era, the whole concept of nation at that time is very vague in certain regions.

Interestingly enough the Celts invaded and pushed out the original inhabitants of these isles, then came the Romans, then the Saxons, then the Normans. At what point do you draw the line and say that these lands now belong to.. "x"?

As I said history is of interest to me and I've always wanted to know how this was achieved

Countries, in the most part, have been created by military force carving out a dominion where the ruling body (whatever you might call it) can enforce its taxation and laws. Borders have been determined by just how far they can push the distance of that dominion.

Scotland is a slight exception, since it was a well-established country before England eventually annexed it through various political maneuvers. Mr. Salmond is #1) dreaming if he thinks it'll ever happen and #2) going to find it hard to establish a hard-and-fast border between Scotland and England if the miraculous does ever happen, due to the long association and gradual mixing between the two formerly-independent states.

You can take our lives, but you'll never take OUR HAGGIS!!!





There's only one thing left to do, unleash the Kittens of War!

Lord Sutekh is correct.

The borders of most nations have been determined by military conquest up to the limits that the stronger nation could achieve. These limits are often geographical, such a mountain chain, wide river or the sea coast.

Scotland became closely politically associated with England on the succession of James VI of Scotland to the throne of England in 1603.

Lord Sutekh is correct.
Sadly, this is how it's done. Still now. If you invade, conquer, and keep, it's yours. Until someone takes it away.

Sometimes border are chosen/discussed by two or more contries. It happen in the balkan area, were after the War, borders were created. And it did not went without problems.

Usually, when a border is decided upon, it's not by the countries involved; in the case of post-WWI countries (the newly-created Iraq) and post-WWII countries (eastern Europe and the divided Germany), the divisions were decided by the winners. Even Africa's divisions are artificial, the legacy of European imperialism.

I respectfully disagree. What makes a nation state? No military force can create a nation. They can defeat another military force, certainly...

A nation is defined by it's political and belief systems and laws. A military force might allow the creation and perpetuation of those things. But the monopoly of violence, state control of the army and police, is exactly the thing which defines a nation.

Perhaps Scotland can become an independent nation, or perhaps it will be returned to the union by force should it ever leave. Perhaps another "x" will, in time, shift the current inhabitants of these islands out, as fleeting a concept that nationhood is.

As for borders, merely lines on a map.

He said "country", not "nation". The two are not synonymous; a country is the terrain, the nation is the people.

And most certainly yes, a country can be created by military force. The USA is a prime example; the Roman Empire is another, and Israel another.

As for borders, we'll see how much you think they matter if you get caught illegally crossing one. It may be a line on a map, but it has legal force and ramifications.

It’s a lot more complicated that simple military force. If nations simply kept conquering land until they couldn’t conquer no more, then wouldn’t the US have annexed Canada and Mexico by now?

Nah, there’s a lot that goes into setting the limits of a nation’s borders. History counts for a lot – China’s claim on Tibet is based on their historical claim of Tibet as part of the greater Chinese empire, while Tibet’s claim is that they’ve been independent most of the time.

Geography and practicality counts for a lot as well. Look at some of the maps of Europe that were drawn up after WW1. Germany was cut into two pieces with a big piece of Poland in between. It was an absurd situation, extremely impractical, and didn’t last long. More generally, countries that grow too big tend to become multiple small countries, and countries that are too small tend to form larger countries.

Ethnicity and culture counts for a lot. Lots of border disputes have involved claim after claim over whether a border region has more of one type of people or the other. Europe had lots of this. Self-identification also plays a part, Gibraltar and the Falklands overwhelmingly self-identifies as English, despite their distance from England.

Finally, the military matters. China’s claim on Tibet is shoddy at best, but they can put more force into the region than anyone else, so who’s going to argue with them? It isn’t the be-all and end-all, because no-one likes to rely entirely on ‘might is right’, but it certainly plays a part.

lord_sutekh wrote:He said "country", not "nation". The two are not synonymous; a country is the terrain, the nation is the people.

And most certainly yes, a country can be created by military force. The USA is a prime example; the Roman Empire is another, and Israel another.

As for borders, we'll see how much you think they matter if you get caught illegally crossing one. It may be a line on a map, but it has legal force and ramifications.

So you're picking me up on a mistake he made? You are both saying Scotland is a country, not a nation? Yes? Scotland is merely terrain? I suggest you get your definitions clear before making any kind of debate and simply getting aggressive towards any dissent. Are the Palestinians a nation? Kosovans? Kurds? South Ossetians? Kashmiris? Native Americans were a people without terrain. "First nations?"

The Roman Empire was an Empire (and a Republic at various times). Not one people or 'country' (not that the notion existed then). It lived and died by it's military might (or lack thereof). Where are the Roman national peoples now? Israel are a people forced in a terrain (by politics, actually!) and kept a nation by military might. The USA was a nation given form by military force, yes, as many nations are. But it wasn't until the civil war that the federal government could enforce the monopoly of violence over what was before then a collection of states. Does Scotland now survive, like Israel, because it has a mighty army?

As for borders, did you not suggest that they were simply a case of how far military might could be extended? Is that not an arbitrary line on a map? Don't be so crass. A border has legal ramifications only so far as your military might can enforce it! How about the 17th parallel? The 38th parallel? The West Bank. Former Yugoslavia. You're applying your notion of statehood to me crossing a line on a map, I don't really need to dignify that with a proper response, do I? Exactly right, a border is only a border if it is legally, militarily, culturally viable. Otherwise I can cross it and you can't do jack.

I have freely crossed the Scottish border many times. I've a couple of pics of me on my motorbike you can have. Scotland doesn't have an army, but they do lay claim to Berwick upon Tweed. How is that so? They lack the might, thus they cannot be right? Yet the majority of people in Berwick want to be part of Scotland.

There, I hope you don't take that as a put down lord_sutekh, it's not intended as such, merely a different point of view. I didn't feel the desire to threaten you with the "ramifications" of crossing a border, although I am flattered you likened me to a nation. I'm really not that powerful.

Er, I think there is a vast difference between the border between Scotland/England and the border between North/South Korea. The Scottish one may just be a line, but the Korean one might get you blown up in a land mine, picked off by a trooper, or start a war.

from today's Independent

Personally I think that all the countries of the Union are far stronger together than separately, and the greatest feats of any of these nations have all been achieved through co-operation.

I know Salmond is pretty desperate to try and achieve independence but he always smacks to me of being more interested in personal glory and power than any actual desire to help his nation. Oh, then again he is a politician

Actually, Scotland signed the act of Union due to pretty much bankrupting herself in a bold, ambitious but ultimately deeply flawed attempt at creating her own Empire.

The idea was to establish a Scottish Colony in Panama, neatly controlling a very valuable part of the world in terms of shipping and transportation. The Colonists were simply not prepared for the climate, and most perished. This move, as I mentioned, more or less bankrupted Scotland, forcing the acceptance of help from England, with the price being forming the Union.

Nowadays of course, things have changed somewhat. The Oil discovered in the North Sea is Scottish Oil, and Scottish Gas. So can someone please, please explain to me that since it first started being pumped, all the money has gone to Westminster? Not so long ago, the way tax was divided up in Britain meant that the Scottish Taxpayer, on average, got less out than they put in. This is clearly unjustifiable.....

But independance? Just a dream at the moment. The Oil is not going to last forever, and we'd need industry before, during and after it runs out.

See if you had guns, tar and feathers, and some really eloquent people who read John Locke, you'd have some options, but I'm thinking its better Scotland is part of GB then separate. But I coud be wrong.

Actually MDG, the scots get a much bigger share of government spending per head of population than any other part of the Union.

I would also beg to differ that the resources are 'Scottish'. Scotland is not (at present) an independent nation and therefore can have no legal claim to resources.

(note - I lived in Scotland for 4 years and have returned a few times since. I have nothing but respect and affection for the people, so this isn't the random English Imperialist rant some posters will undoubtably take it for. Its a simple statement of fact.)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Actually, Scotland signed the act of Union due to pretty much bankrupting herself in a bold, ambitious but ultimately deeply flawed attempt at creating her own Empire.

The idea was to establish a Scottish Colony in Panama, neatly controlling a very valuable part of the world in terms of shipping and transportation. The Colonists were simply not prepared for the climate, and most perished. This move, as I mentioned, more or less bankrupted Scotland, forcing the acceptance of help from England, with the price being forming the Union.

Nowadays of course, things have changed somewhat. The Oil discovered in the North Sea is Scottish Oil, and Scottish Gas. So can someone please, please explain to me that since it first started being pumped, all the money has gone to Westminster? Not so long ago, the way tax was divided up in Britain meant that the Scottish Taxpayer, on average, got less out than they put in. This is clearly unjustifiable.....

But independance? Just a dream at the moment. The Oil is not going to last forever, and we'd need industry before, during and after it runs out.

I think the coronation of certain people helped a lot as well.

of course one of the problems with it being purely Scottish resources was the lack of any actual company or means of extracting it. All the money gone to Westminster ? Where do you think the Scottish money comes from ? Like the massive amount of unemployment or other benefits ? And who do you think paid for all the development and infrastructure in Scotland prior to the oil ? Get out less than we put in ? Happens all over the place-- you live in the SE of England you should be used to that by now.

The nations have been interlinked for so long it's a fallacy to even try and separate them politically. Scottish nobles were gifted lands in England and Wales, and vica versa.

That might be the case now, but for decades it was the other way round. Add in Thatcher kindly nominating the Scots to trial her Poll Tax, and never redressing the balance (what did she care, safely ensconced in London?)....

In other parts of the UK, the money made there stays there...why not Scottish Oil and Gas? Oh, of course, London needs more money to piss up the wall making duff Tourist attractions, and stuff the rest of the country. For example, London is now the Olympic host. Ergo, one would think London has to pay. But no. A fair slice is coming from the rest of the UK...the rest of the UK that is unlikely to see a return on the investment any thing like London will. Fair? Hardly.

Scotland has received a higher proportion of government expenditure per head than England and Wales since the Goschen Formula was devised in 1888.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

(gets popcorn)

I don't think London is going to see a realistic return from the Olympics.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That might be the case now, but for decades it was the other way round. Add in Thatcher kindly nominating the Scots to trial her Poll Tax, and never redressing the balance (what did she care, safely ensconced in London?)....[/quote

Indeed and for a couple of centuries prior to the North Sea oil/gas.

In other parts of the UK, the money made there stays there...why not Scottish Oil and Gas? Oh, of course, London needs more money to piss up the wall making duff Tourist attractions, and stuff the rest of the country. For example, London is now the Olympic host. Ergo, one would think London has to pay. But no. A fair slice is coming from the rest of the UK...the rest of the UK that is unlikely to see a return on the investment any thing like London will. Fair? Hardly.

Again, no it doesn't, we have 1 treasury yes ? Now I agree the Olympic thing is a waste of money-- let's just all pay for a permanent setting in Athens and be done with it.
But as for London paying its way ?

Look here

" AREA SCOTLAND
2006 Mid-Year population estimates 5,094,800
Working age population (2006 mid-year estimates) 3,190,853
GDP (2004) (£million) 78,504
GSP per head 2004(£million) 15,523 "

Now look at the numbers [url=http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/media_centre/keyfacts.htm]here[/url[ and see the difference.

I'll emphasise the

" The Square Mile is the world's leading international financial and business centre – a global powerhouse at the heart of the UK's economy.

Financial services made a net contribution to the UK's export earnings of £24bn in 2006, a major share of which was generated within the Square Mile. It alone contributes nearly 4% to the UK's GDP, with London as a whole contributing 19%."

The Uk, hell London alone, practically carries Scotland on its own.

Frazzled wrote:Er, I think there is a vast difference between the border between Scotland/England and the border between North/South Korea. The Scottish one may just be a line, but the Korean one might get you blown up in a land mine, picked off by a trooper, or start a war.

Really? Ya don't say. Well golly gee I did not know that.

In times past you could get killed venturing up into Scotland. An organisation called the Border Reivers invented the term "blackmail" that we all know and love today. A border fort near Berwick changed hands 27 times. Not to mention all those fairly bloodless battles fought between Scotland and England. Not so easy to cross in those days.

The point being, borders, being borders and lines on the map, are indeed yessiree very different in space and time. What was the 38th parallel but an arbitrary line on the map? What makes North Korea stop and South Korea start?

If it is simply a well defended border that stops North invading South, tell me this: why hasn't America invaded Canada? Sure, those maple candies aren't all they're cracked up to be and Toronto would be basically a 5th column. But think of the natural resources - moose! Moose for all!

You forget we did invade Canada. We lost (clearly not enough Southerners in the army then). Hence you now have to speak French in Canada vs. the more proper Spanish like here

The US also took a good crack at Mexico in 1846-48, which resolved the Texas issue, not to mention pinching Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam off Spain in 1898.

exactly. had not the Canadians won their battle against the Yankees they would now be speaking right and proper Spanish. In retrospect that was probably a mistake on their part. All the lost Tex-Mex opportunities...

R.I.P Scotland