The trend in the world in general but especially in Europe has been the creation of MORE nation-states based on ethnic or linguistic boundaries. Look at the division of Czechoslovakia or the birth of countries like Albania or most recently Kosovo. While one may decry the Balkanization of the continent, it is in keeping with the ideal of self-government of a people.

If Belgium were to have a referendum today with the majority of Walloons voting for secession, who are you to deny them that right?

This is now where the discussion segues into the American Civil War, lol. Just briefly though, that conflict had many, many more issues involved than just linguistic/ethnic divisions.

Btw as far as I know Czechoslovakia was successfuly splited in two part. But that couldn't happen because Brussel is the capital city of both sides.

Czechoslovakia was a state with two peoples in it, who sticked together mainly for political reasons.

@ aum : Is it possible that an "European civil war" will burst when a country will try to live EU? xD

@Chamois

I think France and the U.S. share the reality of having a multi-ethnic nation with many different peoples. The ONE unifying factor has been a common language: English in the U.S. and français in France. Almost any other difference be it ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. can be integrated into a cohesive nation but it seems to me at least that France and the U.S. draw the line at having a language. To me, it makes sense from a strictly pragmatic functional standpoint.

@chamois

I think the world has seen ENOUGH of these damn European civil wars (e.g. Thirty Years' War, Seven Years' War, all the dynastic squabbles like the War of Austrian Succession, WWI, WWII, etc.)! ;-D

@chamois

I'm curious Chamois: if Wallonia took a vote and requested integration with France, would you support such a move?

I would but I don't represent the whole French people. But anyway if they do, they will become disillusioned when tasting Parisian centralism.

@chamois

Haha, spoken like a true Alsatien.

Yes thank you ^^

The US has no law saying English is the legal language. The one attempt in the early 1800s for a national referendum was called off for fear that German would win. If German had won what a change in history that could have been.

Of course it doesn't but that hasn't prevented it from being the de facto lingua franca, one that has displaced any other competitor. Also, considering that the founding legal documents of the nation were written in English, I would say that English has a very good claim to it. I imagine that the founding fathers simply didn't envision the necessity of writing down that English would be the language of the realm.

@aum I not disputing what you mention above, except not envisioning the need for legal language. There had been a serious consideration for above mentioned referendum, this was about 1800. The was fear was since German immigrants out numbered the English in many areas, and if enoff voted for Deutsch, they could have put the country in a quandry with possible dire consequences for national unity. Also note Pennsylvannia had German and English as co-official languages till WW1. The smart thing was done, that is not to push the issue. If they had pushed the issue, Germans being a stubborn people might have pushed back. In which case history would have been much different.

I know that "German" beat out "English" as the most commonly reported ethnicity as of the 2000 census but I didn't think English was ever in danger. Back then, the U.S. would not have even been a century old so everything was sort of fair game and up in the air. If that happened around 1800, this would have been around the same time that the U.S. was fighting for its survival in a losing war against the British in the War of 1812! Remember that the British burned the capital Washington, D.C. More often than not, occupation of a capital brings about peace terms quickly (unless you're Russia). I feel like things have settled down and solidified a bit since then.

Of course these days, the main issue is Spanish. Again, from a pragmatic standpoint, I just want to be able to communicate with my fellow citizens in a common language. There shouldn't be any prohibitions against other languages but if someone expects and demands only his language rather than the common language of his peers, then I have a bit of a problem with that.

aum +1

Spanish (or Korean or Japanese or Chinese or...) is fine in a close knit community. I have no problem going to Little Tokyo in LA and the residents of the community speaking Japanese. Of course, if they want to sell to me they need to have English signs and probably one person in the store who speaks English. But if they want to come out to 7+Fig and shop, they shouldn't expect the store clerks to speak Japanese (although having one in a store who does is good business on the shops' part).

I don't care so much about the commerce part as the governmental part e.g. voting ballots, driver's license tests, health inspection certificates, etc. I think the American liberty of freedom of speech certainly allows you to speak whatever language you wish amongst yourselves. It's the interaction with/from government that I'm talking about.

@aum This was more than a decade before 1812! The Federation was only 12 years old and at it most vulnerable. Are you saying they anticpated the war of 1812 years before it happened? German immigrants were pooring in due to conditions in Central Europe. They were not confined to small communities like you see with many immigrant groups today, but rather composed a large percentage of the population in the cities of Boston, NY, Baltimore, and Phili as well as the back bone of the farming population in PA, central NY, NJ, Maryland and parts of Northern Virginia. No English was not in danger but a co-language condition could have been forced if the referendom was done as planed. This would have had a major difference on are view of the world.

No, no, I'm just saying as you said how vulnerable the republic really was at that stage. I mean, they were still dealing with the aftermath of the Revolutionary War. I just wanted to point out that just a decade after that German language issue the country was fighting for its survival much less trying to sort out linguistic issues.

Which is why if the issue had been forced a co-language situation would have been a likely out come. An Anglo-Teuton US would have viewed world politics much differently.

how could anyone think of splitting a country that has given us a delight known as the belgium waffle???

Should Belgium be split? As I put it in the other thread, "Half of them want to be French and the rest of them want that too".

Of course, it isn't really like that; although the nutter wing of Flemish politics wants independence (Flanders) none of the Belgians that I know, from either community, want to see the country divided. As an outsider, the continuing impasse in Belgian politics is a great subject to tease my colleagues on, so I vote "against" too.

To be more serious, I find the legally entrenched position of language, multiple levels of government, and ridiculous arguments of Belgian politics another illustration of what can happen when you put politicians in control. They are the only people who really gain from the trouble. Scrap the language laws, teach in both if there is demand in the area, let people live where they want and save some money by scrapping the community parliaments.

@Akillies: if you want to see a Belgian waffle, give him a choice. Most of them are so used to seeking consensus they are unable to make a decision.

Here's the way I see it:

Canada: 59% native English speakers, 23% French. Some linguistic division but English speakers outnumber French speakers by more than a factor of two. For better or worse, English hegemony ensures some form of imposed unity.

Switzerland: 63% German, 20% French, 6% Italian, a tiny percentage speaks Romansh. Again, one language dominates. Also, the economic distribution is fairly widespread e.g. Geneva and Zurich are both economically strong cities in Switzerland. Thus, the French speakers and German speakers don't really have cause for enmity between them. The Italian speakers...well...

Belgium: 60% Dutch, 40% Flemish. A country with an almost even split seems to have the most linguistic problems. Coincidence?

Sorry, I meant to type 40% French.

Scotland 99% english speakers, ~1% speak scots gaelic - and they want independance - but then the act of Union which joined them with England and Wales can always be repealed by westminster...

Language is not hte only consideration. If the majority of belgians voted to divide their country then they should be allowed to, but why should france be forced to take them in? Also which state would be considered the successor (taking on modern Belguim's sovereign debt, position within the EU and UN) - ok with the UN it's not going to have the same impact as the seat held by China being in the Nationalists (now Taiwan) hands rather than the People's Republic ie the Vietnam war, however it will have a major impact if one half isn't an EU member while the other inherits membership - then the first half has to apply for membership... - same deal with Scotland however it is clear there the England/Wales will be the successor state (and take all the nukes and the permanent UN security council seat)

Clearly the most urgent problem for a nation at the center of EU, supposedly destined to lose what's left of it's real independence with time and be marginalized to nothing more than a province of the 'US of Europe' is ... break up into two states.

People are stupid though, especially when in larger numbers, so most likely it will happen.

@ora - I'm majorly against Scottish independence, but if it happens I hope the English MPs stand our ground rather than conceding too much to them. The current state of devolution (not having an English parliament) is already rather unfair.

@figles - well IF the Scottish vote for complete independence in a referendum i'm sure the English will just be able to keep their parliment in Westminster and not form their own devolved system - in a way the london mayor's position is a devolution of power - i don't know what the best way to distribute power is, but the EU currently redistributes funds to the poorest regions (which includes some poor areas of England) so why not have local governments with local powers?

anyway, we like the models we have now and they seem to work most of the time, but i wouldn't be married to them, i suppose i'm only in favour of Scottish independance because of the same romantic view of things which makes people in the UK think they should stay together.

It's this made up idea of national identity which is only as valuable/useful as the people who believe in it...

Same thing with Belguim, the idea of a nation is only useful if the people identify with it.

Being one of the huge numbers of Brits with Scottish and English relatives I find the idea of Scotland leaving the UK really bizarre. Both countries have the same language and an identical culture (Yes, there may be slight variations, but none greater that the sort of differences you'd find travelling from Somerset to Liverpool). I can't imagine the difficulties involved in trying to prise apart the English and Scottish military, let alone the economy. It sounds like an awful lot of work for little or no gain to me, and I doubt that Belguim will be hugely different.

@ora-
Maybe, but I'm talking about currently. The last labour government made big changes in giving so much power to the Scottish Government and Welsh assembly (nothing to do with the fact that these area's were going to support Lab and not Con?), after they complained over English MPs having a say in how their area was run. However, despite this having been done, the same has not been done to allow only English MPs to vote on purely English issues - Indeed, the last two PMs were both Scottish!
Now, I'm completely against having this devolution anyway, but if its going to happen at least make it the same for each!