Scotland haven't been independent for a good 500 years, get over it. God bless King James I.

300 years*

Scotland was still technically independent until 1707. The unification before the Act of Union was the Union of the Crowns, which basically was Scotland copping out England for having a succession crisis.

Anyway, Eklipse, how dare you call Scotland a county? Scotland is still a kingdom!

Scotland is like West Virginia. If England(Virginia) leaves the EU(US) Scotland(WV) will leave England(Virginia).

This is getting quite contradictory.

For the Basques or Scots to declare independence from their current country, they would inherently be asking for national sovereignty and freedom. However, association with the EU towards "ever closer union" would inherently mean sacrificing national sovereignty and freedom in order to become part of a "United States of Europe". These two actions are polarizing and conflicting declarations. To have independence is one thing, but then you want to sacrifice that independence to become a united Europe wherein your own political power is being handed over to life-time bureaucrats in Brussels???? Makes little sense to me.

Spain and UK are national countries, EU is union of national countries. National pride, basically.

Very unlikely, tell me what are your sources?

*Sigh* Once again, my response was based upon the situation laid out in YOUR own post.

There are many projects to reduce the EU to the core nations, and I think this could be a good idea to reduce the EU members to the most motivated nations such as France, Spain, Germany, Italy or the Netherlands, and focus the federal union on these nations.

You talked about a scenario where the EU is reduced to its core nations, to where it only focuses the union on said nations. I pointed out in response that IF the EU were to embrace said scenario, then it's unlikely they'd be willing to admit smaller nations if their focus was one Europe's core.

Again a very irrelevant comment from you.

A very hypocritical comment from you. I pointed out the flaw in your own scenario, and you proceeded to change the parameters to attack me. Your own post talked about shrinking the EU to focus on it's core nations, I pointed out that in such case the EU wouldn't be able to accept smaller ones as that would contradict the new policy. Your response was to call my comment irrelevant. Very annoying.

So if I understand your point, history does not matter according to you

History does matter, but only to a logical extent. We could spend years redrawing the world's borders based on who used to own what, and the job would never fully be done.

your own comparison with counties is so irrelevant, since none of these territories were ever counties, they were kingdoms or states, never counties

Panda, YOU were the one who started up this whole "United States of Europe" comparison. Let me see how to explain this more blatantly.

U.S Government Structure:
Federal Government: Tier 1
State Government: Tier 2
Local Government: Tier 3

Current structure in U.K:
United Kingdom: Tier 1
Scotland: Tier 2

Now, based on the analogy which you started. If the EU were to become a fully realized federal government, that means that every government in Europe would be relegated down one tier. The U.K would no longer be a sovereign federal government since it would be subject totally to the EU, meaning the U.K would then become the equivalent to a U.S State, while Scotland,Wales,England,etc. would be relegated down a further tier to where their power would be equal to only that of U.S counties. I'm talking about equivalents and comparisons, I never said that Scotland or Basque are literal counties.

You have the ability to think hypothetically, stop acting as if you lack the capacity.

This is why it's almost impossible to have a coherent argument with you. You constantly shift the parameters of the discussion to try and discredit your opponent. You often fail to remember details of your own posts, much less succeed in accurately addressing your opponent's positions.

In Europe we study the history of the US in history and English classes for years, sorry to disappoint you about this but even if I'm not an expert, I know a little bit about American culture and history, I can't say the same about your knowledge about Basque or even general European culture, after reading your posts here.

I studied Europe for years in school. So by your own logic that means I'm qualified to speak on the subject and you can't criticize me.

Nope I have never been part of Spain, my family and my ancestors weren't Spanish

If you were born in Spain, you are Spanish.
If you were born in France, you are French.
If you were born in the U.S, you are American.

It's just that simple. There might be cultural differences between groups within a nation but as a matter of law political borders are all that matters when determining what nation you belong to.

Again a very irrelevant comment from you.
you better avoid posting idiocies here. you know nothing about our culture and people,
I can't say the same about your knowledge about Basque or even general European culture, after reading your posts here.

Just on this thread, over half your argument consists of attacks on my credibility or shifting the goal-posts by misinterpreting me. I probably won't even respond to your next reply unless it contains something beyond that. There are plenty things I enjoy doing more than getting involved in a mud-pit of cultural posturing.

Anyway, Eklipse, how dare you call Scotland a county? Scotland is still a kingdom!

Refer to my response to Angry Panda. I was only talking about what level Scotland's power could be compared to if the EU were to become a fully federal government.

For some reason it seems Panda likes making hypothetical scenarios for the sole purpose of then shifting to a literal conversation in order to make his opponents look stupid.

"Nope, Basques want independence from Spain and France, because their culture, language and ethnicity are entirety very different (we are even not indoeuropean, because we are the people that were in Europe before the invasion of indoeuropeans ever started), we have a long history as the oldest people still living in Europe. You cannot get it if you are not familiar with our history and culture."

Yet somehow, you think Europe's culture will be similar, that the Swedes will be any more familiar with the Basques than I am. Jai and Eklipse have both said it; how do you support leaving one multi-ethnic conglomeration that rules you from a thousand miles away just to join another. Comparing with America, as a Virginian, I would rather be ruled from DC, even if it is corrupt and uncaring, than from Sacramento, which is just as corrupt and uncaring but even less understanding.

*Sigh* Once again, my response was based upon the situation laid out in YOUR own post.

*Sigh* so once again you answer randomly about a situation you ignore totally as I quote you "it's unlikely the EU would want to integrate small Spanish splinter nations", hence instead of being irrelevant and answer next as you quickly read superficially the posts you were answering, would you bother to answer appropriately to my posts Eclipse for once? Thanks in advance.

You talked about a scenario where the EU is reduced to its core nations, to where it only focuses the union on said nations. I pointed out in response that IF the EU were to embrace said scenario, then it's unlikely they'd be willing to admit smaller nations if their focus was one Europe's core.

Again out of topic, smaller nations can be part of this scenario, see Luxembourg or Andorra. By core nations if you took little attention of what I meant, I was implying the fact that we would need to reduce Europe to nations still motivated and planning to advance further to the European integration, that means the 6 founding nations + nations in favour and agreeing with the plan designed by the founding father in the 50s.

A very hypocritical comment from you. I pointed out the flaw in your own scenario, and you proceeded to change the parameters to attack me. Your own post talked about shrinking the EU to focus on it's core nations, I pointed out that in such case the EU wouldn't be able to accept smaller ones as that would contradict the new policy. Your response was to call my comment irrelevant. Very annoying

Attacked you? just because I dare answering you ahah yes sure, not the first time you stated this, I weren't even the one starting it, and then you talk about hypocrisy... As you post arguments without any sources, so I am going to ask you again this : how Europe would not accept smaller states? How is your argument relevant to the whole discussion? try to answer correctly with a more detailed augmentation this time.

History does matter, but only to a logical extent. We could spend years redrawing the world's borders based on who used to own what, and the job would never fully be done.

And you are far from being qualified to talk about this matter, Scotland and Euskal Herria do have serious reasons to claim independence, their thousand years old history is even more giving credit to it, now since you ignore these nations' history you can't pretend to debate seriously about it. This is why neglecting or minimizing history like you do is plain stupid.

Now, based on the analogy which you started. If the EU were to become a fully realized federal government, that means that every government in Europe would be relegated down one tier. The U.K would no longer be a sovereign federal government since it would be subject totally to the EU, meaning the U.K would then become the equivalent to a U.S State, while Scotland,Wales,England,etc. would be relegated down a further tier to where their power would be equal to only that of U.S counties. I'm talking about equivalents and comparisons, I never said that Scotland or Basque are literal counties.

stop being stubborn and ignoring my posts, I already said that Scotland and Euskadi could be full members of this Europe once their independence were first fully recognized and accepted during a self determination referendum. So no again they would not be 'counties' as you say but recognized states and full members of this potential Europe.

This is why it's almost impossible to have a coherent argument with you. You constantly shift the parameters of the discussion to try and discredit your opponent. You often fail to remember details of your own posts, much less succeed in accurately addressing your opponent's positions.

Eclipse, if we sadly have no coherent argument, blame yourself, while augmenting you are inventing facts without solid knowledge about the very topic (such as Basques are close to the people of Madrid, a federal Europe would not accept smaller nations and the list goes on), the description you made actually perfectly fits you. You fail to remember details of your own posts but worse than this, you also fail to remember details of your opponents posts and invent arguments just because you are not able to support your arguments with relevant sources and facts.

I studied Europe for years in school. So by your own logic that means I'm qualified to speak on the subject and you can't criticize me

Well for what I read here in this thread and elsewhere I can highly doubt about your supposed knowledge on Europe, particularly about the fundamental principles and real objectives of the European Community, why was the EC launched, about the culture of many people living in Europe such as the Scottish or the Basques. Since you invent your own arguments, this shows how weak your qualification is about this topic. So yes here again I can criticize you, accept it or not.

If you were born in Spain, you are Spanish.
If you were born in France, you are French.
If you were born in the U.S, you are American.

It's just that simple. There might be cultural differences between groups within a nation but as a matter of law political borders are all that matters when determining what nation you belong to.

Ever heard of the European citizenship? I guess you don't. Being born in Spain does not necessarily ends up with someone considering himself as Spanish, the situation is not that easy as you try to minimize it.
A nation is something very abstract, a concept that can change with time, that's why nations disappear or are created eventually, some nations which are yhr most likely to achieve independence in Europe are Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia and Euskadi (Corsica is also nowadays experienced a revival of separatism since few months and the elections of separatist leaders in the parliament of Corsica). Like it or not, the nations we know today will change tomorrow, France, Spain or the UK will eventually experience movements for self determination, this cannot be understood if you are not totally aware and familiar with the situation in these territories nowadays.

Just on this thread, over half your argument consists of attacks on my credibility or shifting the goal-posts by misinterpreting me. I probably won't even respond to your next reply unless it contains something beyond that. There are plenty things I enjoy doing more than getting involved in a mud-pit of cultural posturing.

The posture you are trying to assume here is clearly pathetic: if by 'attacking' you meant just answering you, stop being paranoid, half of your own answers here are full of wrong facts if not lies and answers totally invented by you, this is what I am blaming about you, and if you cannot tolerate someone answering you then sure you should better stop respond to it.

I am not trying to make you look stupid gosh the fact that I disagree sometimes with you does not mean I do not respect you as a debater, I may be harsh sometimes as much as you are, but nevertheless I respect you Ellipse.

Yet somehow, you think Europe's culture will be similar, that the Swedes will be any more familiar with the Basques than I am. Jai and Eklipse have both said it; how do you support leaving one multi-ethnic conglomeration that rules you from a thousand miles away just to join another. Comparing with America, as a Virginian, I would rather be ruled from DC, even if it is corrupt and uncaring, than from Sacramento, which is just as corrupt and uncaring but even less understanding.

Good point PE. But one important fact: Europe will not be a centralized state, it has to be federal, and before becoming federal, Europe has to achieve these points:
- a strong entity with its own currency (already achieved although not all members joined and some states were too weak and threatened the Euro),
- a strong economy with one common market (partly achieved),
- with an army and own security or intelligence agencies (partly achieved with Eurocorp and nowadays with terrorist attacks intelligence services of all countries are now really collaborating but not as much as in the US)
- with one single voice internationally and in diplomacy (attempts were made but are not successful since the president of the EU has no legitimacy and is a puppet of European states)

I also do not see Europe as America. There could be regional and state governments still managing internal affairs with strong powers, pretty much like nowadays but they would just renounce their sovereignty for international affairs. The closest example of organization could be the Holy Roman Empire, I guess this would make more sense in your eyes.

That's fair, but there are still issues.
"- a strong entity with its own currency (already achieved although not all members joined and some states were too weak and threatened the Euro)"
The difficulty with that is that varying economic situations (UK vs. Greece, for example) means you want to be able to manipulate currency at various levels. A single currency would hurt that.

" with an army and own security or intelligence agencies "
That I agree mostly with, but I think it should be done more as an alliance than federation

Finally, the main issue is the nature of government. America was set out as a balance between state and federal governments, with possibly more power residing in the states. But the federal government has grown, and taken complete control. Knowing that power makes men greedy, I think it is reasonable to assume a federated Europe would become beholden to a central leviathan having control over all aspects of governments, not just foreign policy.

Edited 2/22/2016 23:46:43