Carving Up the UK
- Thread starter Dean_the_Young
- Start date
The post is about "carving up", I assume that this means the process in involuntary. A divided nation would be much easier to control.
britain never recovers from world war 2 by 1960 everyone is so sick of being poor that the country implodes with scotland becoming independant wales during the crisis the royal family and thier supporters manage to keep the london area and south east the rest is divided up by local politicains and buisnessmen. By 1962 it's clear that scotland and wales are communist the U.S decides that it's had enough since it's war loans aren't being repayed and invades scotland and wales. Meanwhile the kingdom of london and the southeast gets into a stupid war over the channel islands with France and is subsequently occupied. West germany takes the middle bit after uing an economic excuse to invade. Russia takes the hebrides and shetland islands in a sneak attack. northern ireland incidentally gets merged with the republic of ireland. all except for the middle bit of england is occupied
England was a well ordered and functioning country pre 1066 = when Wales, Ireland & Scotland were a bunch of feuding states. Of them, only Scotland managed to become a fully independent unitary state.
That said, why even contemplate a split.
Northerners may live beyond Watford but they are still English.
That said, why even contemplate a split.
Northerners may live beyond Watford but they are still English.
Dont know about Wales and Ireland but your post is incorrect about Scotland, Scotland was a unified independent state before 1066.
Scotland has been a country longer than England has. Unified in 843 by Kenneth I, whereas England was unified only in 967 by Aethelstan.
Now Wales is slightly more problematic, unified only in 1056, but even then it was a fully independent, unitary state (although under increasing pressure from England). Ireland was united and independent probably even earlier than all the others, being under High Kings in the 830s or earlier, although the form of rule was pretty loose and fell apart completely within a couple of hundred years.
So actually England was no further ahead than her rivals, with the exception of Wales (and that was probably due to Kit's ancestors and their divisiveness!)
King Thomas
Banned
The EU occupies the UK after it tries to leave, with French troops in Scotland, Dutch troops in Northern Ireland, Belgian troops in Wales and Spanish troops in England.
Dont take this the wrong way(and Ian,dont you dare ban me for another week!) but this is pretty crazy.
You've forgotten the 11th Commandment:
Though shalt not tempt fate, the gods, of moderators.
That said, I've seen crazier. Heck, I've made some. At least this has some reasoning, since Europe pretty much was dead after WW2. If no Marshal plan results, and economic trouble persist, populism and socialism start looking better. Heck, George Orwell joined a socialist militia in order to be in the ruling party once Britain fell to The Revolution.
So it had nothing to do with being a Socialist?
Does he mean the POUM? They were Trotskyists. Hardly likely to be in the 'winning side'...
He was taking on Franco. A very noble cause indeed. As far as I was aware though, he was a Socialist.
I'll agree to that as long as I can have a independent East Anglia
Oops, regarding Scotland. However, the Scotland that existed pre-1066 covered a smaller area than existing Scotland with areas like the Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland being part of Norway (albeit with native gaelic chiefs). The Treat of Perth, 1266, transferred the Western Isles to Scotland (for a small sum of cash). Other parts of modern Scotland, such as Moray and some of the Border regions were effectively independent - at least until King David, one of Scotland's greatest Kings, brought them under royal control in the early 12th Century.
I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.
I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.
True, but the core region of Scotland was the north east, which was the royal centre at the time. Likewise England was not yet complete at the time, still lacking the vital piece of the jigsaw that is Cornwall!
Nice Wikipediizing by the way...
Redbeard
Banned
Hmmm...isn't it already happening?
London and a number of cities declare themselves Islamic Republics, which are imediately recognised by other Islamic powers, incl. some with nukes. The remaining Britons in the smaller towns are, heads bend, busy removing Piglets and other images that could insult those who must not be insulted.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
London and a number of cities declare themselves Islamic Republics, which are imediately recognised by other Islamic powers, incl. some with nukes. The remaining Britons in the smaller towns are, heads bend, busy removing Piglets and other images that could insult those who must not be insulted.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
OK, I'll grant you Cornwall wasn't part of Anglo-Saxon England although William did make his half-brother Robert Duke of Cornwall in 1068 and replaced the native cornish aristocracy with mainly Breton nobles. One could argue that the situation with Cornwall is similar to that of Wales, a Celtic fringe nation conquered then assimilated by England, albeit much better assimilated than Wales, hence now considered English - somewhat like Brittany and France. It's a flimsy argument though.
Essentially, as I see it, in 1066 the situation was:
England - unified more or less within present borders (less Cornwall and with the northern border fluid). As Hastings was so complete a victory, William could take over the kingdom as a going concern (what we would now call regime change)
Scotland - a Scottish Kingdom, somewhat smaller than now but which under an able series of kings expanded to (and sometimes beyond) the existing border and developed a strong scottish identity throughout the whole kingdom. Even the anglo-norman families, like the Bruces, came to see themselves as scottish first and foremost.
Wales and Ireland - warring princedoms eventually conquered, though never wholly assimilated, by the English (anglo-normans to be more precise). Occasional strongmen could unify these but rarely for long
Things have changed a lot since then and were Britain to be carved up along national lines it would be into the England, Scotland, Wales components with N Ireland either separate or a very reluctant part of a unified Ireland. Further subdivision might be possible, but always with the prospect of reunification within these national boundaries.
Essentially, as I see it, in 1066 the situation was:
England - unified more or less within present borders (less Cornwall and with the northern border fluid). As Hastings was so complete a victory, William could take over the kingdom as a going concern (what we would now call regime change)
Scotland - a Scottish Kingdom, somewhat smaller than now but which under an able series of kings expanded to (and sometimes beyond) the existing border and developed a strong scottish identity throughout the whole kingdom. Even the anglo-norman families, like the Bruces, came to see themselves as scottish first and foremost.
Wales and Ireland - warring princedoms eventually conquered, though never wholly assimilated, by the English (anglo-normans to be more precise). Occasional strongmen could unify these but rarely for long
Things have changed a lot since then and were Britain to be carved up along national lines it would be into the England, Scotland, Wales components with N Ireland either separate or a very reluctant part of a unified Ireland. Further subdivision might be possible, but always with the prospect of reunification within these national boundaries.