Indeed it would. Too bad Wales wouldn't be along for the ride. A federal Celtic state would be cool.

I do think that when regional majorities pull other parts into disaster against their will, the case for splitting up is very strong.

I doubt the United State would agree, while the lack of Union in South America shows what happens when you don't kick your imperial masters out and form a united state...

Actually, South America is pretty well functioning. There has not been a war there in something like 150 years and international relations are pretty reasonably calm. Sure a large Spanish American state could also have worked.

And I'm sure that the US wouldn't agree, but then as a large imperialist power that's not isn't surprising. Russia doesn't think any of its neighbors have any right to be independent either. I'm not sure either is to be taken as a model of righteousness on this score.

'Coercion, Capital and European states' by Charles Tilly (perhaps controversially) would argue that international war is necessary for the development of state institutions.

While 'Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-state in Latin America' by Miguel Angel Centeno argues that the lack of international wars in Latin America has lead to weak states - and i would argue this lead to anemic economic development.

See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6xi8_7Fy6Y for a brief description.

My arguement is that a single South American Union could have gotten involved in more international wars...

Obviously this isn't an issue in Ireland/Scotland, as we already have strong nation-states with institutions, taxation, and a dependency on citizens.

"The Brexit vote and poses a threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom along with a serious complication for Unionism in Northern Ireland and to continued peace on these Islands; combined with this, Scottish membership of the EU will be reviewed with a possibility that the EU will force Scotland to reapply for membership.
We propose that a new Federal state be created (with the democratic support of a majority of citizens in all three countries, and both communities in Northern Ireland), representing the three member countries, which would inherit Ireland's current obligations under EU treaties, guaranteeing a continuation of EU protections to citizens of Northern Ireland and Scotland; while creating a more balanced Federal Union between Dáil Éireann, Stormont, and Holyrood.
Three nations voluntarily uniting for the good of all their citizens.
While we may not be able to prevent Westminster from leaving the Common market, it is possible for Scotland and Northern Ireland to join with the Republic of Ireland and choose our own path. We would hope: to continue inside the common travel area with England and Wales, to retain EU citizenship for all citizens of these territories, to retain devolved powers in the three capital cities, to guarantee the neutrality and secure a common defence pact, to share a common currency, and to ensure peace in Northern Ireland for the coming generation."

https://www.change.org/p/scottish-government-form-a-federal-republic-for-scotland-northern-ireland-and-eire?recruiter=25185175&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Not that it matters very much, but there have been numerous wars in South America in the last 150 years. It's been almost entirely peaceful since 1941, which is pretty good.

Also 8 civil wars, and a whole variety of brutal dictatorships, only some of which were instituted by the US.

The union of scot, n.ire and ire would go the same route as the united Arab republic; nowhere.

It probably isn't happening, but it's a pretty good idea. 11.8 million people and GDP of $590 billion (#21 in the world) would be more viable than another couple of tiny states, and Northern Ireland is already half Scottish and half Irish so there'd be more balance.

Ogion:150 years of peace in South America, you say? No wonder President Santos got the Nobel Peace Prize!

orathaic: Very much a radical idea! Do you actually think that Dublin would agree to recognize Northern Ireland as a separate entity in a federal state? There's so much that makes the proposed solution unlikely.

@pastorlan, exactly, Northern Irish independence is a recipe for civil war. Scottish and Irish guarantee's of their security within a federation would do much to prevent that.

Along with being the 21st largest economy in the world, that would place us as the 5th largest in the EU (after England and Wales leave).

@JECE, currently there is no appetite in Dublin for a reunification, and the one political party which is advocating for that doesn't have anywhere near the required support either in the Republic or the North.

Politically this wouldn't hurt parties in Dublin. I'm not so sure about Scotland.

As a federation, these three countries would have their population split 45% in Scotland, 39% in the Republic of Ireland, and 15% in Northern Ireland. Giving a much more balanced situation than the current one in the United Kingdom.

Combine that with the existing Scottish Executive, and Northern Ireland Assembly, we have the institutions to run three countries effectively enough to make the transition fairly seamless.

#socialistvenezuela #miracleofchile

@"It probably isn't happening, but it's a pretty good idea."

My thoughts exactly. It is a dream, and nobody have a real interest in making it happen, but it could guarantee peace for another generation, so i'm happy to see if there is any appetite for it.

@"Not that it matters very much, but there have been numerous wars in South America in the last 150 years. It's been almost entirely peaceful since 1941, which is pretty good."

what do you think of the historical theories that suggest this is the reason for anemic development of South American economies.

A lack of wars driven by the similarities between (white) upper classes of different countries and differences between them and the (black and indigenous) lower classes, has left them without external threats. And this peace has meant states only needed small armed forces to secure themselves from their own people.

This in turn meant they didn't need to invest in the growing a middle class (who could then be taxed to support a larger army) and then no leverage for their middle class to extract concessions for greater quality of life. (the short version, at least as i understand it, of Miguel Angel Centeno's theory)...

This notion that a slack of international wars is bad is patently stupid. Wara are incredibly destructive and often damage institutions severely, particularly if they're obliterated when you lose

Yes, there have been wars of minor kinds and a couple of long lived insurgemcies. Now compare that to Europe, Asia or Africa over that same period.

And Latin America is the richest of the continents outside of Europe the Us and Australia. Brazil's GDP per capita is double China's, and Argentina is higher still. So, you might want to review a few facts

By far the biggest factor is the extremely unequal distribution of wealth and political power that has led to endemic corruption. Yes, having the US depose any regime that looked likely to change that hasn't helped

Maybe check out Alain de Janvry's work on colonial relations and how the west worked to keep Latin America and the colonial states as underdeveloped as possible.

Falklands War ??? South American Nation starts a war with a European power & gets defeated quickly.. 1980's

Since there was never conflict in any territory governed by a South American country, I don't think that counts.

Seriously? You're comparing the Falkslands war to, say WWI?

@Ogion, you should look at 'rules for rulers' by cgp grey, and contrast how 'strong-man' South American countries get/got their treasure (in the 20th century at least) to how european countries did in the same time frame.

anyway, my full rant: https://medium.com/@orathaic/why-form-scottish-irish-northern-irish-federation-c512a45eb738#.vp5cn69d9