Scottish independence
An inevitable discussion I’m afraid.
Do you think it will happen, or will those who wish to leave the United Kingdom eventually fall back into line and Scotland remains in the United Kingdom?
Are the Scottish going to say “so long and thanks for all the fish”?
Is it economically viable for Scotland to survive as an independent country and will this involve rejoining the EU?
Will the EU welcome Scotland back?
Is there a political deficit in Scotland and is this the real reason for Scotland leaving, rather than nationalism?
Do you think it will happen, or will those who wish to leave the United Kingdom eventually fall back into line and Scotland remains in the United Kingdom?
Are the Scottish going to say “so long and thanks for all the fish”?
Is it economically viable for Scotland to survive as an independent country and will this involve rejoining the EU?
Will the EU welcome Scotland back?
Is there a political deficit in Scotland and is this the real reason for Scotland leaving, rather than nationalism?
Comments (72)
I’m not exercised over the issue myself, but I couldn’t turn to a Scot and advise them to put up with this for any longer.
I don’t know the legal position, but I expect they can, they do have a parliament. They did close the border with England a few weeks ago during a COVID lockdown.
Politically there is a democratic deficit north of the border, in which Scotland has little say in the decisions and governance of her people, delivered by an out of date southern England facing political elite. An elite steeped in the class system which has ruled over most of the population of The UK like privileged barons for centuries. Particularly brutal in reference to Scotland.
Economically, the English often repeat the claim that Scotland couldn’t stand on its own feet economically and that England support them financially. Some use this as a reason the patronise the Scottish as somehow inferior and that they should get real and stop grumbling. Then there is the economic effects of Scotland rejoining the EU. This also has a political dimension.
More like built-in contempt for the Scots. Because today they don't have any border to England as they are part of the UK.
However,
Scotland has been an independent country for a long time in history. It has institutions and infrastructure that are at par with others West European countries. Needless to say that they (the Scotts) are totally capable of handling every area of independence and perfectly capable of handling an independent Scotland as a sovereign state. And likely they would get into the EU quite easily after already having been there. The only nut to crack would be their southern neighbor, which wouldn't like it. The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland gives people a hint of the future problems if Scotland opts for independence.
Interesting to see how the English handle Scottish independence movement now. Or then the Scottish Independence Party fucks up it again. Because the UK government is smart enough not to be a bully and send Challenger tanks to roam the streets of Edinburgh. I would think that London's hope is just to drag it's feet, not to give coverage to the topic and hope the economy recovers so much that people are OK with their present union.
No independence for them in 2014:
Or then things go to the worse and you won't have the issue solved with polite political dialogue and peaceful elections, but with far dismal outcomes, which actually is the norm for humanity.
Interesting to see what happens to Northern Ireland also.
The Scottish Parliament can decide on matters as:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport
While the UK Parliament is responsible for matters like:
benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution
And looking at the list, while "health and social services" and also "law and order" are under Scottish Paliament rule, I would assume that the Scottish Parliament / Scottish leadership can decide on issues concerning a pandemic. Hence the actions of Nicola Sturgeon seem from my point of view be totally in line with Scottish autonomy.
Many Scots today simply say it’s to late, the government would have had to put their promises into action from the day following the independence referendum in 2014 to have a hope. But nothing happened, now they have broken their biggest promise, to guarantee EU membership for the Scottish people.
Watch this space.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/02/uk/2020-hurt-the-uk-2021-could-kill-it-intl-gbr/index.html
Can Johnson say no?
If so, is it sustainable?
The SNP has boobed. The election was effectively a 2nd referendum. And the combined vote shares were 51/49 in favour of the Unionist parties. How is a 2nd ref now justified? I suspect the Sturgeon/Salmond infighting has turned just enough people off to lose the nationalist majority. Maybe voters suspect the SNP aren't quite the knights in shining armour they seemed..
What is your logic here? SNP were 1 seat away from a majority. The fact that the whole SNP campaign revolved around a 2nd referendum and that the green party are also pushing for the indy ref clearly shows that the majority want it to happen. And a coalition between SNP and greens will be an implementation of that. Scotland voted to stay in the EU almost unanimously. So I don't see how it wouldn't be justified now that the conditions have changed.
Anyway, it's not your country that would break up, but the union.
Would you be OK if the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish voted to leave the United Kingdom and form their own country? Does that differ from them voting to expel Scotland from the United Kingdom? And if in either case they voted not to, does that differ from them voting against Scottish independence?
So thought many who considered themselves being Yugoslavians...
Your logic implies that the people in non-uk EU countries should've had a vote to determine brexit.
That doesn't answer my question. Would you be OK if the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish voted to leave the United Kingdom and form their own country?
No, because the EU isn't a country. The UK is.
No, the UK is a political union comprised of 4 sovereign countries.
Quoting Michael
This idea about some hypothetical pact between nations is irrelevant. The actual circumstances are about one nations right to its independence.
It's not irrelevant. If Scotland has the right to vote for its own independence then England has the right to vote for its own independence, Wales has the right to vote for its own independence, and Northern Ireland has the right to vote for its own independence. And by the same token they have the right to join with any other country which is willing to accept them. And so England and Wales together have the right to vote for a new, independent England + Wales country. And England, Wales, and Northern Ireland together have the right to vote for a new, independent England + Wales + Northern Irelands country.
Are you OK with that? Or should Scotland have a say in whether or not England, Wales, and Northern Ireland leave the United Kingdom?
The United Kingdom is a sovereign country as established by the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800:
None of the constituent countries are sovereign in their own right, but in the cases of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland devolved power was granted in 1999, 1999, and 1921 respectively.
If Scotland were a sovereign country then it would already be independent.
Referendums are won by % votes, not seats. The SNP and Greens may have a majority of seats but not votes cast. What is your answer to the fact that the % voting for them was 49% and for the Unionist parties 51% ? Surely my logic is clear... Admittedly, since people voted twice with Alba in only 1 vote the water is muddied, but given the 'once in a generation' nature of the 2014 vote surely it needs a clear majority in favour of independence to make the 2nd vote case unanswerable.
btw: I'm not against independence.
Does being British matter to you?
Are people OK if you weren't British anymore, but only Scottish, Welsh, English?
But here's the difficulty: If independence for Scotland, why not independence for the Hebrides or for Pimlico, or any teenager's bedroom? In the case of marriage, the parties to be joined or separated are fairly well defined; not so for countries. Wars must be fought to establish borders before the scope of referendums can be established. And imagine the boot being on the other foot - England wanting independence from all those Celtic regions and granting Wales, NI, and Scotland their independence whether they like it or not!
Of course. Why would that even be an issue?
The Scottish are not separate to Westminster. The Scottish are part of the Westminster Parliament, together with Northern Ireland, Wales and England.
At the moment, Scots make up about 8% of the population of the UK and have about 9% of the MPs in the UK Parliament. However, since 1900, Scottish Prime Ministers have been in power for about 20% of the total period.
The official position of the SNP is to be a full member of the EU. Of the 705 MEPs, Scotland could expect to have a similar to number to Slovakia, who have a similar population, meaning about 13 MEPs. Scots would make up about 1.2% of the population of the EU and would have about 1.8% of the MEPs
If the SNP are worried about being dominated by the Westminster Parliament, then their problem will only be magnified if they become part of the EU.
I was asking what the difference is between England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all voting for their independence from the United Kingdom and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland voting for Scottish independence. Either outcome has Scotland as one country and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as another country.
But also I disagree with the claim that one part of the United Kingdom can vote for its independence. The United Kingdom is one sovereign country and I am a citizen of that country. I'm not a citizen of England or Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is my country and I ought to have a vote in what happens to it.
What's the difference between me deciding to leave my house for another and my three brothers deciding for me? Either outcome has us in different houses. You're being silly.
How is it silly? What's the difference between Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom and forming a new country?
Whether I move to a different house or my brothers fuck off elsewhere, I don't care. But the bastards have neither the right to evict me nor to force me to stay. Similarities in outcome are irrelevant. The issue is choice. Sovereignty if you like.
Good for him. Especially seeing as his section is so tiny, his control over the whole building so insignificant (he has been removed against his will, for example, from the larger housing community he wished to remain a part of), and the dominant party so insufferable to live with.
Correct. It is true that historically England has dominated Scotland as it has Wales and Ireland. However, Scotland having a much smaller population and economy, it would have ended up being dominated by England anyway, in the same way Germany with Europe's largest population and strongest economy has dominated smaller Continental countries by default.
At the end of the day, foreign domination is foreign domination, and there is no guarantee that domination by Brussels, i.e. by Germany and France will be any better than domination by London. I think the danger is that the SNP is mainly interested in acquiring power for itself as most parties are and is only playing the independence card for its own agenda. But it remains to be seen whether the Scots actually vote for independence in the end.
Maybe another solution would be for Scotland to join the Scandinavian countries that are just across the sea, but whether that would help much economically is questionable and the economy does matter I should think.
Maybe the United Kingdom should devolve altogether. Independent England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland. Independent Yorkshire? Independent Cornwall? Or unite Ireland? Fat chance, probably.
Maybe the British Isles should be made a UN Protectorate. Once they ran an empire; now they don't seem to be able to run a fish and chips shop. Or maybe the French should take over again. It improved things quite a bit the last time.
I beg to differ. As noted in The Telegraph of 10 May in an article about the UK's 50 best fish and chip shops, there are now 10,500 fish and chip shops in the UK and they are experiencing a booming trade since the start of the lockdown, where orders have shot up by 208%.
So much so that even the French are after our fish, as noted in the BBC headline on the 7 May "Jersey officials hold talks with French fishermen over rights dispute".
I think the French have more on their plate than looking to take over another country. As the BBC News headline of 11 May noted: "French soldiers warn of civil war in new letter".
North Sea Oil cannot be called a "growth industry" even if it has been sustained, to say at least. And only part of the UK production would be Scottish (knowing the English):
The hey-days of increased oil revenue are over I'd say.
lol I doubt very much France can take over anything right now. Maybe Germany though? After all, that's where the Anglo-Saxons came from.
BTW, I remember reading somewhere that the Scots originally came from Scandinavia, thousands of years before the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. So, maybe the genetic pull is calling?
Having said that, considering that the four nations are so close together, can they really be economically separate and at war with one another? Would conflict between them not be used by foreign powers like China or Russia to destabilize Western Europe and take over? I think the issue is a bit more complex than it seems.
Their international exports (not counting trade within the UK):
Well, when it comes to ethnic pride, the economy often takes second place. Obviously, in an ideal world all four nations should be "independent", though it's hard to tell how practicable that would be in the end.
As for Brexit, I think it's too early to tell. We need to see how Europe comes out of the pandemic crisis, how rival powers like Russia and China play it, etc. But if Johnson intends to make the UK dependent on China as a substitute for the EU, then I doubt Brexit can have a happy ending.
As Tim3003 pointed out, referendums are won by % votes, not seats.
In a democratic society, the will of the people is generally taken to mean a decision by simple majority, or half-plus-one wins the vote.
Nicola Sturgeon on the 8 May 2021 said a second independence referendum "is the will of the country" and the prime minister would be "picking a fight with the democratic wishes of the Scottish people" if he tries to block it.
To take a sporting analogy, in the World Championships in Berlin 2009 100 metres Men Final, Usain Bolt finished in 9.58 seconds and Tyson Gay finished in 9.71 seconds - a difference of only 0.13 seconds. If the sports commentator had said that Tyson Gay had won because he had the slower speed then that commentator would never be taken seriously again.
Similarly, it makes no sense for Nicola Sturgeon to say that a second independence referendum is the "is the will of the country", when the pro-second independence referendum parties (SNP and Greens) gained fewer votes than those parties opposed (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats).
But not only that, as Scotland has a population of about 5,517,000 and there are about 4,281,000 registered voters, the pro-second independence referendum parties only gained 24% of the population in general and only 31% of the registered voters, making her claim that it "is the will of the country" even more spurious.
I don't know much about Scotland per se, but I do know a little about the EU. It's not easy to learn about the EU at all compared to the US or many other countries. It's just a massive undemocratic bureaucracy. Not that it's all bad mind you, but it has very serious problems.
If the EU does not integrate like the US has, I fear it will be doomed to collapse. Coronavirus response was quite illuminating so far as EU unity goes...
So if Scotland does leave, it may be quite bad. But staying in this EU is not amazing either. Pick your poison.
Like you I wouldn’t want this to happen, I would gladly go back to how the world was before the referendum. But it was an act of constitutional upheaval which was inevitably going to have consequences. Something Cameron should have considered before calling the referendum.
Unfortunately we now have the circumstances where the break up of the Union is pretty much inevitable. Due to the clowns who have forced their way into Downing Street and are doing their Laurel and Hardy impersonation at our expense.
I can understand some Scots wanting independence, even at a financial cost of about £15 billion a year. For example, this compares to the £14 billion that the Scottish government spends on its NHS each year.
According to the 2018/2019 Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report, tax revenue north of the border amounted to around £66 billion - that figure includes North Sea oil revenues. Scotland received about £81 billion in public spending. That means the UK Government spent an additional £15 billion in Scotland as a whole, more than it collected from the country via taxes. This is under the Barnett Formula.
However, this is not what the SNP wants. The SNP wants to rejoin the EU. But independence is not compatible with EU membership. The SNP manifesto 2021 states "we are seeking the permission of the Scottish people in this election for an independence referendum to take place after the crisis (covid)" and "we firmly believe that EU membership is the best option for Scotland".
The SNP say that they want to be independent because of their feelings of "subjugation" within the UK Parliament, having only 9% of the MPs, yet propose joining the EU, where they will have possibly have only 1.8% of the total MEPs. If the SNP feel "subjugated" within the UK Parliament, their feelings of "subjugation" will only be magnified once part of the EU. Scotland can be either independent and not part of the EU or part of the EU and not independent, but they cannot be both independent and part of the EU, as the SNP misleadingly say they can.
The SNP's claim that Scotland can be both independent and a member of the EU is untrue.
I am no expert on the powers Scotland has been given by Westminster, but it doesn’t give them much freedom. They still have to go cap in hand for most things. Just recently Jacob Rees Mogg said in the house that devolution is a failed project and that it is now time for its abolition. The same government has been saying in their anti EU rhetoric that we are controlled by the EU and that’s why we have to leave the EU. But in reality the EU is largely trying to regularise standards, regulations, tariffs and enjoy a customs Union between members. Allowing the establishment of the single market. Any notion of an EU superstate had receded years ago and of course we would always have had the right to veto.
Imagine if Scotland vetoed the abolition of devolution.
:up: Hard to not like a man in a kilt playing the bagpipes :smile:
Is the question that simply too many English have moved to Scotland and openly displayed anti-English sentiment has made them firm supporters of the union?
(Yeah, that's what is lacking here from a typical European dispute: blaming ethnic minorities.)
Or are the pro-Independence people simply too annoying?
What Rees-Mogg actually said was: "It is the SNP that has been the failure and it is not devolution that has been the failure."
At Commons Business Questions 19 Nov 2020, Rees-Mogg said that devolution would work "perfectly well" if the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland. He accused the SNP of having a "shameful" record at Holyrood. He also said "The failure of the SNP is not something I would have thought [Mr Sheppard] would wish to boast about. "The SNP in government has failed on Scottish education, it has failed on Scottish health, it has failed on Scottish law and order. "It is a shameful record in Scotland of the SNP. They have let the people of Scotland down." He added: "Devolution could work perfectly well if only the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland, which would make a triumphant success of it.
Both the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Conservatives have had a long history of supporting and strengthening Scottish devolution.
The Conservative and Unionist Party manifesto 2019 stated: "Strengthening the Union: Conservatives have a proud history of upholding and strengthening the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We also want to ensure that the UK Government and its institutions are working effectively to realise the benefits of four nations working together as one United Kingdom."
The Scottish Conservative manifesto of 2021 stated: "For devolving power and funding to communities, so that we can put an end to the era of SNP centralisation and better support local services, like schools and roads".
The Scotland Act 2016 devolved further powers to Scotland, and recognised the Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government as permanent among UK's constitutional arrangements, with a referendum required before either can be abolished.
In addition, Ruth Davidson at a speech to the Scottish Conservatives on the 26 March 2013 said: "we have heard their ambition for a devolved parliament within the UK with greater powers than it currently holds. We have listened, we have heard and we will act. We will respond positively to that ambition, and in doing so, we reaffirm our unshakeable conviction that continued membership of the UK is the cornerstone of a safer, fairer and more prosperous Scotland"
In summary, it is not Conservative policy to abolish devolution.
Quoting Punshhh
The home page of the EU does not say that the role of the EU is largely in trying to regularise standards, etc, but rather that "The European Union is a unique economic and political union between 27 EU countries".
The single market is important as the economic engine of the EU, but is no longer the raison d'être of the EU.
It is true that the predecessor of the EU was the European Economic Community (EEC), created in 1958, and initially increasing economic cooperation between six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organization spanning policy areas, from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration. A name change from the European Economic Community (EEC) to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this.
The problem with the current EU is that it is no longer largely an economic union, but is progressively becoming more and more political.
This would not necessarily be a problem in itself, in that the EU's stated aim is in making its governing institutions more transparent and democratic. However, this is an example of Orwellian doublespeak, because the EU is becoming in reality, more opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic.
As Rees-Mogg said to the Oxford Union on the 24 October 2013, in speaking about the EU's "contempt for public opinion" as shown by the Commission repeatedly demanding referenda on EU treaties until they are approved and its role in the removal of elected leaders of countries such as Greece and Italy, thus giving a voice to extremist parties such as Greece's New Dawn and France's Le Front National. Their successes, amplified in EU elections, have become a destabilising influence on member states' democracies.
If the EU had remained an economic union and had not morphed into an undemocratic bureaucracy, I doubt Brexit would have happened.
1) Money: England subsidises Scotland to the tune of nearly £2000 per year per person. I remember in the 2014 referendum Salmond made a lot of Scotland being able to pay its way via its oil revenues - then oil was $100 per barrel. That looks like a pipe dream now.
2) Fear of going it alone as a minnow. What currency would they use? They want to keep the £, but Westminster will not be so amenable. Sanctuary should be found within the Euro, but post-Brexit it's a longer and uncertain road to get into the EU. And I think many Scots aren't ready for the loss of Queen's-head-on-the-coins Britishness.
I think that when the reality of the financial hit Scots will take from independence becomes clear in a ref campaign they may lose their courage. But then I thought that about Brexiteers too!
This is the thing I didn't understand when listening to the pro-Independence narrative: this so-called "independence-light". They were saying that it wouldn't be a change as if they could pick the positive aspects of independence, but refrain losing positive aspects of the union. It really raises question how much actually the Scots want to be independent. After all, the world didn't end in the UK after Brexit happened.
I assume that the Queen could stay to be head of Independent Scotland. As Alex Salmond has said years ago, the union of the crowns predates the union of the parliaments which he wishes to end. I assume this view hasn't changed with Nicola being at the helm. Canada and Australia are independent countries from the UK, so why couldn't Scotland have the monarch they have had? The royal family loves to be in Scotland. So it would be just basically a personal union. So she (the queen) could easily continue even on Scottish money, if the Scots wouldn't want to go with the euro.
The SNP's mistaken dependence on North Sea oil and gas prior to the 2014 independence referendum should be both a lesson and an important moral about their dependence on the EU prior to any future independence referendum.
The SNP manifesto 2011 stated that "In 1970 North Sea Oil was discovered, with 90% of it lying in Scottish waters. This led to one of the our most successful campaigns – It’s Scotland’s Oil". The SNP manifesto 2021 stated "The people of Scotland voted decisively to remain within the European Union and we firmly believe that EU membership is the best option for Scotland".
Alex Salmond, as Scottish First Minister, and the SNP, as majority government, when leading up to the 2014 referendum put the oil industry at the heart of their campaign. They predicted oil prices could rise above $150 a barrel by 2020 - the remaining reserves were worth £300,000 per Scot - they estimated there were 24 billion barrels of oil and gas remaining, with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion - all of which would significantly underwrite Scotland's economy.
However, these predictions did not come to pass. MSP Andrew Wilson, chairman of the SNP's growth commission, said in 2017 said that making North Sea revenues central to the economic arguments for independence had been a mistake, and SNP's future economic case "should not include oil". Since then the North Sea oil price has plummeted with UK oil and gas production generating negative receipts in 2015/16 of -£24m compared with +£2.15bn the year before. Today a barrel of oil is $70.
While the oil and gas sector currently does not generate much in the way of public tax revenue, it does contribute to the economy in other ways, such as in employment. For example, about 70,000 Scots are either directly or indirectly employed in the oil and gas industry, primarily in the Aberdeen area.
However, there are inevitable pressures against further economic benefits of fossil fuels. In the 6 May 2021 Scottish elections, the pro-independence SNP failed to win an overall majority and must rely on the the Green Party, who favour a substantial reduction in oil and gas production, for a pro-independence Holyrood majority.
In summary, as the SNP made the mistake in 2014 (according to the chairman of the SNP's own growth commission) of planning to base Scotland's economy on North Sea revenues, the SNP will need a stronger and more reasoned argument in 2021 to show that they are not making another mistake in planning to base Scotland's economy on joining the EU.
Comes to mind the Scottish idea of getting a fabulous colony in the Mosquito Coast, which would raise vast riches to the country with the Darien scheme in the late 17th Century.
There is something similar with the idea of this external income source ...and not simply having the Scots pay taxes.
In truth, natural resources give far less income than something manufactured with skill and technology.
Oh? I think you'll find some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world have been accumulated by the oil-rich middle eastern states. The largest belongs to Norway..
Yet in truth, the share of GDP of the oil sector isn't so huge compared to other oil producing countries....which tells something. Norway was already wealthy when it found oil and proved to use the revenues better than for example UK. Actually thanks to the fact that they asked a philosopher what to do with oil revenue.
Now compare how well Venezuela has done with far more larger oil resources.
What you focus in on amounts to the same thing.
SNP are a failure, we know that they are now the dominant party, so by extension devolution is a failure because it has enabled SNP dominance.
Devolution would work if the Conservatives are in power in Scotland, well of course it would because they would also be in power in Westminster and they would conspire to keep the Scots happy while not enabling Scots to have a say in their affairs unless governed, viewed through a Tory lense.
I recognise the significance of the amendments to the Scotland act. It will be interesting to see if it has any teeth during the tussle over indyref2.
However I won’t be taking seriously anything spoken by a Tory after 2014. They have shown themselves to be disingenuous and self servingly devious after that.
I agree the abolishment of devolution is a not a policy, which I did not suggest, but the Tory’s will be looking to how they can bring Scotland to heal. An impossible task as far as I and many others can see.
In reference to the EU, the ambition of an ever closer Union has faded in recent years in the light of various crises. The development of EU wide policy has been a good thing for the Union as a whole and is focussed on means of cooperation in critical areas, rather than in any kind of arresting of political powers, or institutions. Also the UK has been free to negotiate opt out clauses and vetos.
So the criticisms and failures perceived in the minds of those in the UK about the EU are largely fabricated and have been groomed to transfer our own failures and inability to cooperate in the project of the EU onto the EU parliament.
This has been going on for many years and is fuelled by the right wing client press in the UK. Which has been drip feeding concocted and false narratives into the population for a generation.
If one is looking for genuine reasons for Brexit, it will inevitably lead back to the cancerous influence Murdoch. Alongside the failures in Blair’s government to manage the flows of Eastern European migrants following secession in 2004.
It is certainly not anything to do with the European Commission.
Now if we look at this Westminster/media bubble through the eyes of Scotland, particularly following the EU referendum. Is it any wonder Nicola Sturgeon is doing so well.
In an ideal world there would be one world nation.