Great post. The fascinating thing about this topic is that one definitely gets the sense that once one region has successfully seceded from a European nation, lots will do so. For example, I could see Scotland becoming independent followed in quick succession by Wales, which in turn, would precipitate the breakup of Spain and the secession of the Basque region Catalonia, Navarra, Galacia, etc.

At this point it seems more like when rather than if. Also, if I had to make a guess I think that Spain has the greatest chance of a secession in the near future given the fact that there was never really any sense of unity there.
 

It is much more likely that the UK will keep most of its sovereignty and a arms distance from the EU bureaucracy in Brussels than any genuine fragmentation of the UK itself.

After the Thatcher / Reagan market reforms and the subsequent generation long economic boom, even Labor (and our Dems) are not inclined to follow the EU model of government mismanagement of the economy and the resultant stagnant growth and high unemployment. If they hope to keep power, Labor is not likely to sacrifice any more of its sovereignty to Brussels.

However, Scotland and Wales are too integrated into the British system to have any real independence. They may seek a greater measure of self determination like say our states possess in the US federal system, but there will be no serious moves to independence.
 

Devolution has left the U.K. in a somewhat odd (to me) situation. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have regional governments but England does not. It's as if the District of Columbia were the size of, say, Texas or California or the whole Eastern seaboard.

This may (or may not) be behind some of the conflicts over resource allocation (e.g. health benefits) to which Prof. Levenson alludes. It is clearly implicated in the statement that Scots in the national Parliament help govern England but the English in Parliament don't make the local rules for Scotland.

As an aside, the the fact that the Labour Party dominates the Scottish delegation to the national Parliament is the result of the winner-take-all voting system. It is not the result of Scottish public opinion.
 

What about Texas? Can we reverse-secede from them, like the UK with Scotland?

Then they can elect George W. Bush president over and over again.
 

What about Texas? Can we reverse-secede from them, like the UK with Scotland?

Then they can elect George W. Bush president over and over again.

I confess there are days when I wish the South had succeeded. Then I ask myself how WWII might have ended in that alternative universe and I suppress the rebellious thought.
 

"However, Scotland and Wales are too integrated into the British system to have any real independence. They may seek a greater measure of self determination like say our states possess in the US federal system, but there will be no serious moves to independence."
********
That's a resounding NO! Scotland has been an independant country far, far longer then the time that has transpired since the Act of Union. Scotland is perfectly capable of managing her own intellectual, fishing and mineral recourses on her own, thank you very much!
 

Mark Field said...

I confess there are days when I wish the South had succeeded. Then I ask myself how WWII might have ended in that alternative universe and I suppress the rebellious thought.

If the Red States seceded from the Blue States, they would have to deal with illegal immigrants from both the Blue States and Mexico trying to find a better life.
 

Harry Turtledove has some interesting alternative history novels. They assume that the South won its independence, and the novels trace some interesting possibilities through WW1 and WW1, etc. Fun reading, even if too North-centric.
 

If the red states seceded -- or the rest of the states seceded from them -- the GDP of the blue states would go up and the GDP of the red states would go down, since, on average, the red states are being subsidized by the blue states.

The direction of migration is correlated with positive changes in GDP, as I understand, so this is unlikely to pan out as Bart suggests.

This also means that, if the Scots do secede, there'll be another wave of Scottish immigration. The Irish and other immigrants in England won't like that.
 

Bart: If the Red States seceded from the Blue States, they would have to deal with illegal immigrants from both the Blue States and Mexico trying to find a better life.

We already get the immigration from both ends. That's why 9 out the top 10 fastest growing states are red states (California being the one exception).
 

Zathras said...

Bart: If the Red States seceded from the Blue States, they would have to deal with illegal immigrants from both the Blue States and Mexico trying to find a better life.

We already get the immigration from both ends. That's why 9 out the top 10 fastest growing states are red states (California being the one exception).

You might want to read Michael Barone's article The Realignment of America for a detailed breakdown of immigration and native migrations in the US. While I have critiqued Barone's electoral assumptions from these migrations, his data ought to be sobering for Blue State and City governments.

C2H50H said...

If the red states seceded -- or the rest of the states seceded from them -- the GDP of the blue states would go up and the GDP of the red states would go down, since, on average, the red states are being subsidized by the blue states.

In that case, the Blue States would not have a military because most of this so called subsidy goes to funding the military based in Sun Belt states.
 

Bart,

I think you're confusing "military bases" with "the military". Last time I checked, West Point, Annapolis, and New London were all located in Blue states.

The military is designed to be relocated, or perhaps I missed that "have to have a home" in military history?

As to your assertion that "most of the so called subsidy" goes to the military, I think that may be true in extreme cases, like Mississippi, where Biloxi takes in huge amounts of money, but I decline to take your unsupported word for it in general.

This is as far into fantasy as I care to go. Enjoy the thread, all.
 

C2H50H said...

Bart, I think you're confusing "military bases" with "the military". Last time I checked, West Point, Annapolis, and New London were all located in Blue states....This is as far into fantasy as I care to go. Enjoy the thread, all.

The military has roughly 1.5 million men and women serving. The two military academies and the naval bas to which you referred might have a miniscule fraction of that total. The vast majority of CONUS bases in which they reside are down south where the weather is good most of the year for training.
 

Most of the military's bases are in the South, but that has a lot to do with the BRAC shutdowns of the early 90s, not necessarily with the geographic origin of troops-which is a problem, as has been shown with the lack of ROTC in many northeastern urban areas. And, of course, every "blue" state has an army and air national guard.
 

An article in The Economist emphasizes how completely split Belgium is between the Flemish and Waloons, with one prominent politician apparently stating that there is really no reason to maintain Belgium as a single country, given the lack of any shared national identity.

This reminds me of a lecture that Habermas gave at the University of Chicago law school back during the leadup to the euro currency. He said the biggest obstacle for the EU at the time wasn't the lack of a shared monetary form, but the lack of a shared identity as "europeans." Or something along those lines...it was a long lecture and a long time ago. :)
 

Does anyone know if the T.V. networks are going to go back to Blue = Republicans and Red = Democrats for Election 2008?
 

Sandy, your comments leave out the Conservative Party's prime motivation: Gordon Brown. It's doubtful that they'll seek English seccession (they are, after all, the Conservative and Unionist party).

But Brown is a Scot. The Tories are setting things up for a constant refrain of a Scottish Prime Minister making decisions that have a negative impact on English people but none whatsoever on his own constituents. Anti-Scottish invective will be the theme for the next election.
 

mchlskng said...

Most of the military's bases are in the South, but that has a lot to do with the BRAC shutdowns of the early 90s, not necessarily with the geographic origin of troops-which is a problem, as has been shown with the lack of ROTC in many northeastern urban areas. And, of course, every "blue" state has an army and air national guard.

Somewhat.

Many of the current bases were created during WWII when Southern Dems dominated the Congressional committees and had the Army set up primarily in their states.

I agree that the BRAC process exacerbated that shift south. However, the pitch being given then (which had a great deal of merit) was that the Army could train full time in Sun Belt bases while training would get sidelined by the weather for extended periods up north. I believe they shifted 10th Mountain up to Ft Drum, NY as part of a compromise to make this shift work politically.

Apart from NG posts, the geographic origin of the troops had no real part to play in the location of bases. You serve where you are sent, not near home.
 

Let the red states keep the military bases without blue state subsidies.Then Mississippi could compete with Haiti in the quality of their public schools and other social services.
 

anonE.mouse said...

Let the red states keep the military bases without blue state subsidies...

The Blue States in this fantasy sidetrack of ours sound a great deal like Rome before her fall when the decadent and lazy Romans hired others to perform the military work.

If we take this fantasy to its logical end, maybe the Blue States pay to have the Red States protect them. Or maybe the Red States simply conquer the defenseless Blue States and take what they want.

A people which depends on the kindness (or avarice) of others for their national security deserves what it gets.
 

The point is, that the south can have as many facilities as it wants, but if a substantial number of troops are not from the south, then I don't see any advantage there-we saw how strong regional ties were in the Civil War, regardless where troops were stationed before the war.

I have to call BS on the weather/training explanation-since when does any army dictate what weather it trains in? Obviously you need to be ready to fight in any environment, even rainy Fort Lewis, and it was hardly forseeable in the early 90s that we'd be bogged down in the ME.

But also look at California-Ft. Ord, home of the 7th ID, BRACed-since when to sub zero temperatures and blizzards sideline training in the central CA coast? Or all those AF bases shut down in CA since then? Yeah, the central valley and So Cal are so notorious for their freezing rain, clouds, and snow...
 

mchlskng said...

The point is, that the south can have as many facilities as it wants, but if a substantial number of troops are not from the south, then I don't see any advantage there-we saw how strong regional ties were in the Civil War, regardless where troops were stationed before the war.

I agree completely. I brought up the fact that the military is stationed disproportionately in the Sun Belt to put the lie to the so called subsidy of the Red States by the Blue, not to restart the civil war.

(Although, I do admit to having some fun with the regional prejudices of some other posters here.)

I have to call BS on the weather/training explanation-since when does any army dictate what weather it trains in?

Perhaps, you meant "since when does an army dictate in what weather it fights wars?" I would agree with that.

However, it is simply a fact of life that snowy winters and sloppy springs can simply grind training to a halt as it has often done to wars. It is simply more efficient to train in less inclement weather. Our training in Germany was often circumscribed in one way or another by the weather.

The fact that most of our troops train in the Sun Belt or the even hotter National Training Center in the CA desert should not significantly hamstring them fighting in Europe or North Korea, if the need arises. In WWII, we trained to fight in Europe with large scale maneuvers in the sweltering countryside of Louisiana. The troops still managed to win the Ardennes Campaign in one of the bitterest winters in memory.

When I served, this Yankee would have much preferred to train in New England rather than the insane heat of Fort Bragg or Ft Benning in the summer. However, while sweating can be miserable down South, there were no real obstacles to year round training down there as there would be during a New England winter and spring.
 

"If the south would a won we would a had it made.
I'd probably run for president of the southern states.
The day Elvis passed away would be our national holiday.
If the south would a won we would a had it made.
I'd make my supreme court down in Texas and we wouldn't have no killers getting off free.
If they were proven guilty then they would swing quickly,
instead of writing' books and smiling' on T.V.
We'd all learn Cajun cooking' in Louisiana
and I'd put that capital back in Alabama.
We'd put Florida on the right track, 'cause we'd take Miami back
and throw all them pushers in the slammer."

Didn't want this discussion to pass without noting Hank Junior's paean to Southern necrophilia.
 

L.S.,

that is the beauty of the European Union. It makes the nation state increasingly irrelevant. As a result, even if Scotland seceded, or if Belgium split, it wouldn't make any difference, because there still wouldn't be any real borders between the new countries, and they'd still have most of their laws and policies in common.
 

Americans can be forgiven for summoning up the image of guns opening up on Fort Sumter, and breaking into “Dixie” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” whenever the word “secession,” comes up in the course of conversation.

But if anyone needs a frightening catch-up: has everyone forgotten the lessons and the horrors of Yugoslavia?

Separatism, in its Western, twenty-first century iteration is a insidious, quiet killer of collective spirit and enterprise. It obscures basic policy issues, intra-nationally it panders to the vacant desire to feel different at the expense of others. Supra-nationally it sells those less informed and more remote inclined to comic-book best into misplaced and simplistic characterizations of underdog/overdogism.

One Quebec premier –himself a separatist – told Canadians that the secession issue is like an endless trip to the dentist. It imposes chronic costs and harm and injects needless and endless doubt into efforts at national enterprises

The idea that Western nations cannot develop political structures that accommodate and protect legitimate cultural diversity diminishes us all.
 

Americans can be forgiven for summoning up the image of guns opening up on Fort Sumter, and breaking into “Dixie” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” whenever the word “secession,” comes up in the course of conversation.

But if anyone needs a frightening catch-up: has everyone forgotten the lessons and the horrors of Yugoslavia?

Separatism, in its Western, twenty-first century iteration is a insidious, quiet killer of collective spirit and enterprise. It obscures basic policy issues, intra-nationally it panders to the vacant desire to feel different at the expense of others. Supra-nationally it sells those less informed and more remote inclined to comic-book best into misplaced and simplistic characterizations of underdog/overdogism.

One Quebec premier –himself a separatist – told Canadians that the secession issue is like an endless trip to the dentist. It imposes chronic costs and harm and injects needless and endless doubt into efforts at national enterprises

The idea that Western nations cannot develop political structures that accommodate and protect legitimate cultural diversity diminishes us all.
 

martinned said: that is the beauty of the European Union. It makes the nation state increasingly irrelevant.

That is true in a sense. However, the EU is quite remote--both politically and emotionally--from most citizens of Euro countries. Scots may not identify themselves as "British" anymore, but they don't refer to themselves as "Europeans" either. That may change as Europeans become increasingly mobile, but we aren't there quite yet. Moreover, States in Europe are still relevant as the primary provider of social services. It is difficult to imagine nation-states ceding this role to the EU in the near future, especially as the EU expands to include ever more--and ever poorer--states to the east. So even though the EU promulgates regulations that must be implemented, most of the political action still takes place at the nation-state level. (And that certainly seems to be the perception among Europeans as well. Witness the excitement in France over the recent French presidential election and compare that with the apathy re: the elections for the EU parliament.)

But I think you are right that the EU makes regional secession possible, from an economic standpoint. The existence of EU subsidies makes vast resources available to small states--so prospective secessionists would not suffer economically from loss of contact with the larger country.
 

Here's the funny part about the comments to this post. I read a comment, and it sounds (rather) sound in reasoning and fact. Then I see that Bart DePalma is the author. Therefore, I automatically doubt its factual veracity and the solidity of the analysis. Unfortunately for me, I now assume what you have said is false (or at least not entirely true), and I may find myself thinking the opposite, even though what you said is correct!


Mr DePalma, your dishonesty on so many other posts have made your comments here suspect, even though the issue is completely independent of the normal issues that I find you to be evasive and insincere.
Unfortunately, the lack of credibility you have created on those threads has become so pervasive, your handle carries that ignominious reputation on completely unrelated matters.
 

What I find amusing is that Bart makes the statement that he only raised an issue to debunk the "subsidy" comments.

You can find the ratios of federal money paid in to the dollars paid out to each state fairly easily (google is your friend) -- but without an authoritative source upon which to rest Bart's assertion, the debunking only exists in Bart's mind.
 

"Bart" DePalma has nary a clue:

If the Red States seceded from the Blue States, they would have to deal with illegal immigrants from both the Blue States and Mexico trying to find a better life.

ROFLMAO.

Cheers,
 

No major party has been historically associated with any particular color. With the advent of color television, network news alternated colors to avoid the appearance of bias. Maps depicting results of the 2000 election used blue to represent states supporting Democrat Al Gore and red for those supporting Republican George W. Bush. The contention and controversy of that election ingrained the red state vs. blue state divide in public consciousness, and since then red has been closely associated with Republicans and blue with Democrats. I wondered above if the colors would switch back for 2008, and here's some info I've found so far:

Prior to the 2000 Presidential election, there was no universally recognized color scheme to represent American political parties. The practice of using colors to represent parties on electoral maps dates back at least as far as the 1950s, when such a format was employed within the Hammond series of historical atlases. Color-based schemes became more widespread with the adoption of color television in the 1960s and nearly ubiquitous with the advent of color in newspapers. A three-color scheme -- red, white and blue, the colors of the U.S. flag -- makes sense, and the third color, white, is useful in depicting maps showing states that are "undecided" in the polls and in election-night television coverage.

Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1984 map showing Reagan's 49-state landslide as a "sea of blue", and this color scheme was also employed by most newsmagazines. CBS during this same period, however, used the opposite scheme — blue for Democrats, red for Republicans. ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. As late as 1996, there was still no universal association of one color with one party.

Notably, in European two-party systems, the party of the center-left tends to be red, because of assocation with communist red.

But in 2000, for the first time, nearly all major media outlets used the same colors for each party: Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. (An exception was Time magazine, which continued to use its traditional scheme of blue for Republicans and red for Democrats.) Partly as a result of this near-universal color-coding, the terms Red States and Blue States entered popular usage in the weeks following the 2000 presidential election.

Additionally, the closeness of the disputed election kept the colored maps in the public view for longer than usual, and red and blue thus became fixed in the media and in many people's minds. Journalists began to routinely refer to "blue states" and "red states" even before the 2000 election was settled. After the results were final, journalists stuck with the color scheme, such as The Atlantic's cover story by David Brooks in the December 2001 issue entitled, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." Thus red and blue became fixed in the media and in many people's minds despite the fact that no "official" color choices had been made by the parties.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made use of the color scheme when it launched a national "Red to Blue Program" in 2006. Otherwise the color scheme is unofficial and informal, but is widely recognized by media and commentators. Partisan supporters now often use the colors for promotional materials and campaign merchandise.

The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, communist, and/or liberal interests, which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. The Liberal Party of Canada has long used red and the Conservative Party of Canada has long used blue, and in fact the phrases Liberal red and Tory blue are a part of the national lexicon, as is Red Tory, denoting Conservative members who are social moderates.

Similarly, the symbol of Britain's Labour Party is a red rose (and the socialist song 'The Red Flag' is still sung at party conferences), while the British Conservatives are traditionally associated with the color blue.

The paradigm has come under criticism on a number of fronts. Firstly, many argue that the usefulness of assigning partisanship to states is only really useful as it pertains to the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system of elections. The Republican and Democratic parties within a particular state may have a platform that departs from that of the national party, sometimes leading that state to favor one party in state and local elections and the other in Presidential elections. Arkansas and West Virginia were won by George W. Bush in 2004, but Democrats comprise the majority of officeholders in those states. New Hampshire and Maine both have two Republican senators but voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. Similarly, North Carolina went solidly for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but its governor and both houses of its legislature are in Democratic hands.

Secondly, most States are actually a shade of "purple" with a mix of both red and blue voters. Some conservatives have also been wary of using the "Red State" term to describe conservative or Republican-voting electorates, as the term had previously most often been associated with socialist states, like Cuba, China, and East Germany. However, it may by argued that a color scheme associating red with the Democratic Party would have never become widely popularized since Democrats would have been just as reluctant to associate themselves with a color that has been historically perceived as associated with "un-American" communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_current_color_scheme
 

Kevin Drum (and commenters) also provide this theory:

Since the advent of color TV, there has been a formula to avoid charges of giving any party an advantage by painting it a "better" color. Here is the formula: the color of the incumbent party alternates every 4 years.

. . .

This fits all the available evidence, and also explains why Democrats have usually been colored red: it's a coincidence. In the six elections prior to 2000 every Democrat but one had been coded red, but that was just because of how the cycle of incumbency happened to work out during that period.

And as Petey points out in email, this raises an interesting question: what will happen in 2008? The formula will assign blue to the Republicans, but the red state/blue state divide has now become so entrenched it's hard to imagine anyone switching colors at this point. I guess in four years we'll find out just how anal the network mapping gurus really are.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005157.php