Military Review

“PostScotland” and “Pre-Catalonia”: Legitimation of the New Nationalism in Old Europe

18 September 2014 held a referendum on independence in Scotland. On November 9 a referendum on independence is scheduled in another country - in Spain, in the region of Catalonia. The past referendum showed how the idea of ​​Scottish independence moved from the category of implausible to possible or even probable. The Scottish incident showed the Europeans that the long established, developed and relatively prosperous communities relative to the rest of the world, such as Great Britain, were not as stable as it seemed to everyone before, in the face of national relations and new nationalism. In addition, the new separatist movements showed everyone their legal opportunities in Europe. Precedent should be fixed by new practices. Before the Scottish referendum, this method of developing regional separatism was known only in the New World to Canadian Quebec. The Scottish and Catalan precedents raise the question of how reliably ethnic conflicts were eliminated in the old Europe in the post-war period. At a time when the economic crisis is tormenting the European Union, challenging European supranational institutions and principles, the possible end of the union of peoples in Great Britain and the partial overcoming of Spanish identity in Catalonia will legitimize the national claims that Europe has been trying to remove from its national States. The Scottish referendum gave legitimacy to the new nationalism in old Europe.

The Scottish referendum has and will have an impact on other regions set up to gain national independence in the EU member states, such as Catalonia in Spain and Flanders in Belgium. Crisis points are noted in the Italian Tyrol and Romanian Transylvania. In the Polish Silesia, work is underway to design a different ethnic identity from the Polish Silesian. However, against this background, the British case is unique because the question was raised about the restoration of the historically existing statehood and the breakup of the state union of the two peoples, beneficial to the British nation, in the post-imperial period after the UK turned into a national state.

After a phase of intense rivalry with France, Great Britain became the center of a complex international system that existed from the end of the Napoleonic wars before World War II. The British Empire formed not only the international system of relations, but also influenced the internal political order of such emerging large countries that emerged on the basis of the British colonies such as the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India. The British Empire was formed not only by force, but also by free trade, relying on the achievements of its own industrial revolution. Britain for two centuries was at the forefront of scientific and technological progress. Colonial and commercial expansion relied on the seafaring fleet, which, in turn, used the achievements of the industrial revolution, having gone from sail, through the steam engine to the steam turbine. From the very beginning of the construction of the British Empire side by side with the British fought, worked, migrated together in the colony of the Scots. The Scots "carried the burden" and benefited from the existence of the British Empire along with the British. The British Empire ceased to exist, but the dividends it received still benefit all British citizens.

However, until the point of growth of the British Empire, Scotland and England were historical enemies. Their struggle was rooted back centuries to the era of rivalry between the Celts and Germans. In the historical past, the British and Scots did not trust each other. Moreover, each of the parties had good reason for this. Interethnic rivalry was intertwined with a complex struggle and attempts at "reconciliation" through a union through conquest or through dynastic intrigue. Since the sixteenth century, tensions in relations have added religious differences within the framework of various Protestant systems and contradictions with Catholics. For both peoples, for a long time, coexistence on one island was associated with the problem of national security. At the same time, Scotland constantly gave the British reason to fear a foreign invasion of the island through its territory. Neighboring France has repeatedly tried to use Scotland as a convenient base for an attack on England, protected from the continent by the sea. The Scots, in turn, feared that English dominance would lead to the exploitation of Scotland and, possibly, to assimilation, that is, to the disappearance of the Scottish language and culture. Regarding the language, their fears were fully justified.

The union of 1707 of the year was the result of a decree by the parliaments of the two countries. The Union relied on the experience of the dynastic union, which, after 1707, was supplemented and consolidated by the creation of a single legislative body of the united country. England at the conclusion of the parliamentary union was guided by its old island geopolitics. Scotland, in turn, proceeded from financial problems that it was unable to solve on its own. In addition, Scotland, through a union at the expense of British overseas colonization, solved the problem of its own excess population. This gave a huge plus to a poor country.

As a result of the union of England and Scotland, Great Britain was created on the main British island. Moreover, since the 18th century, the British and the Scots acted as one people in the historical arena. Scotland and England began to project outward one national theme, but with their own flavor of historical peoples. National differences in cultural terms were overcome and by the end of the twentieth century, it seemed to have been overcome forever. The number of speakers of Celtic Scottish was reduced to a minimum, while the Scots themselves in the cities and mostly in the countryside switched from Scottish English to literary English. However, cultural and linguistic unification, as recent events have shown, has not eliminated Scottish nationalism.

The formation of a single British nation at a starting point in time was slightly ahead of the Enlightenment with the French Revolution, which proclaimed a nation-state the cornerstone of a new “free” world. The nation state has become the main political challenge to the traditional order with its international monarchist dynasties and the fragmentation of peoples between feudal possessions in Europe. Enlightenment put forward the idea of ​​a nation united by a common economy, language, culture and history. Capitalism cemented this phenomenon. The nation has received the inalienable right to self-determination, primarily in relation to the traditional order. Democratic and republican forms of government were defined as an ideal for a nation-state. After the French Revolution, some countries in Europe, such as Germany and Italy, were forcibly united into nation states. Others, on the contrary, are dismembered. As a result of the First World War, the Habsburg empire collapsed, and nation states were created on its ruins in the wake of decentralization. It is believed that the second wave of the formation of national states in Europe followed in the 1992 year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The idea of ​​the right of the nation to national self-determination and the practice of the national state was used in the uprising against European imperialism and colonialism in the Western Hemisphere to create independent republics in North and South America. The second wave of the anti-colonial movement, raised after the Second World War, led to the self-determination of the new national states in the colonial territories, which were partially created on an ethnic basis or even invented without any correspondence to individual nations, effectively dividing many of the existing ethnic groups with borders. In the majority of cases, Republican democracy was again used as a form. The fundamental principles of the national state as an international standard were proclaimed first in the charter of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations.

However, the nation state, existing as a pure principle, in practice faces the reality that it cannot be mono-ethnic. In each nation state there are certain ethnic minorities. In addition, cultural differences within one ethnic group make themselves felt. Ethnic identity, connected, in fact, not with blood and soil, but with culture, is changeable in practice, as culture itself is changeable and historical. At its very formation, nation states faced this problem. They solved it differently and often through conflict and blood, as it was, for example, in France during the French Revolution or in the Hapsburg Empire during the 1848 revolution of the year. The situation of peaceful inter-ethnic cohabitation in the previous period was replaced by the opposition of the peoples. The confrontation led to conflicts. The culture of national states in Europe suppressed the culture of national minorities and assimilated them. In some cases, national construction was accompanied by attempts to subordinate minorities, in others, minorities began to demand independence, appealing to the right to create their own ethnic state. To overcome the conflict in Vienna, the principle of cultural autonomy was invented. Often internal conflicts were aggravated by external ones. The right of nations to self-determination required a revision of the borders, which often in the case of a solution to the issue once again divided the existing nations. In addition, the hard part of national self-determination is the need to make decisions and live with them further. Not everyone stood up to this challenge and temptation.

The paradox of Britain is that the British nation began to take shape a little earlier than the start of the era of nation states. The British nation was born as the privileged ethnic core of the British Empire. After the liquidation of the Empire, Great Britain became an ordinary national state. Privileges in fact have been lost. However, this result was fraught with a split of the British nation. Obviously, a possible rejection of the union of Scotland with England would create a second national state on the British Isles.

The idea of ​​a national state after the period of wars 1914-1945 in the world was brought to the point of absurdity. In Europe, in order to avoid conflict between national states, the principle of invariance of the borders of existing states was adopted. The doctrine was imperfect, which became clear already in the situation of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. The transformation of the internal administrative borders into the borders of the new national states gave rise to new bloody interethnic conflicts. However, neither the collapse of Yugoslavia nor the collapse of the Soviet Union were recognized in Europe as a dangerous precedent for itself.

The right to national self-determination and the principle of the national state turned out to be fundamentally flawed, since in each new historical period, new conflicts sprang up in a new historical cycle. One of the reasons for the creation of the European Union was the desire to overcome the practice of national self-determination in Europe through the creation of a supranational structure.

Nationalism, as one of the key products of the national state, demonstrates its strength in the pursuit of national self-determination. At the same time, nationalism has a certain inertia to move towards its logical conclusion. Therefore, there is no reason to trust any moderate assurances of any European nationalists - Scottish, Catalan or Walloon, who dress in the clothes of the regionalists. In particular, in the event of the termination of the union of Great Britain and the creation of two national states on one island, no one can guarantee the preservation of good relations between the two peoples, bearing in mind the fact that relations between them have been conflicting in the past. And it was precisely to the conflicts that Scottish nationalism began to appeal when it began to virtually generate the modern historical memory of the Scots. It is enough to pay attention to the individual works of the 1980-1990-game cinema. In the case of Scotland, as we have seen, rational motives have become a means of exhorting separatist aspirations — possible economic and financial problems, difficulties in relations with the European Union, or difficulties with national defense. From an economic point of view, for Scotland and the Scots, possible achievements are doubtful, but the shocks, on the contrary, are real. However, in the case of nationalism, and the Scottish case is again confirmed, the bourgeois theory of human behavior, which asserts the priority of maximizing economic benefits, does not work. People in this situation are guided rather by abstract motives that are derived from culture than the motive of economic gain. The situation in the USSR in 1989-1992 demonstrated this maxim of the rule of irrationalism over rational. The alliance center’s 1991 sanctions against Lithuania were the result of a misunderstanding of the situation at its core. A referendum held in Scotland showed that almost half of the Scots prefer economic uncertainty to the tried-and-true alliance of nations. In addition, the irrational lies in the field of the demand for freedom, when freedom is already a reality of the existing civil society in the UK.

Separatist conflicts in Europe to a greater extent should be viewed as a product of culture, with the condition that the latter, although connected, but not directly with the economy. National identities basically depend on historical memory, which can be controlled by means of culture. Historical memory can be fictitious. The social movement for Scottish independence is based on an emotional desire for a strong, egalitarian and socially responsible policy. In terms of individual consciousness, the Scots believed that Scotland, conditionally speaking, could become a semblance of neighboring Norway. There are no rational arguments against separatism, based on references to tax revenues or the safety of bank accounts. Nationalism replays any economic logic. People are interested in economic well-being, but not to the detriment of everything else, and most importantly, culturally constructed ideals.

“The great forces of the Empire, long being disunited, seek to unite again, and after a long unification they break up again - the same is said in the people” - this is how Luo Guan-Zhong begins his story in Three Kingdoms, one of four classical Chinese novels. Separatist aspirations in Europe and the associated nationalism are not a kind of regularity of the modern stage of history. History has always been a battleground of nations. The national state attempted to squeeze this phenomenon into a rigid framework, restricting the living movement of peoples. This only creates excessive conflict.

Eliminate the phenomenon can not be. It is possible to change the essence of statehood from national to another, but only theoretically. Therefore, the state remains only rational control over the movements of ethnic identity and the culture that generates it. In this regard, the British authorities in the case of the Scottish referendum have demonstrated an enviable experience in managing the process. The first round of the game with Scottish nationalism, they successfully won. Let's see how in the future they will be able to consolidate their success in blocking nationalism in the case of Scottish ethnic identity. The next step is to hold the exam with the authorities of Spain.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 28 September 2014 06: 34
    Nationalism replayes any economic logic. By Dmitry Semushin

    The nation-state tried to squeeze this phenomenon into a rigid framework, restricting the living movement of peoples. This only creates excessive conflict. By Dmitry Semushin

    As observed in the actions of the Kiev junta, count her in the grave. New Russia must win!
    1. Giant thought
      Giant thought 28 September 2014 10: 04
      Nationalism never arises from scratch, when a nation is uncomfortable living together in one state with other nations, then active nationalism begins. The art of big politicians consists precisely in ensuring that all nations in a single state live comfortably, but not all of them succeed.
      1. Oleg Sobol
        Oleg Sobol 28 September 2014 20: 05
        Quote: Giant thought
        The art of big politicians consists precisely in ensuring that all nations in a single state live comfortably, but not all of them succeed.

        This applies to small countries and even federations.
        I propose expanding the issue of the problem.
        At the moment, there are nations formed into statehood, without their desire, and in need, "high material values", in view of the small territories, the residence of these nationalities.
        Take the territory of Russia ... And here the picture is completely different ...
        Nations and territories were not conquered and did not join by force, but they joined and mastered, at the level of mutual assistance, mutual development, mutual memory of the past, and with an understanding of future development ...
        And on a voluntary basis.
        As for the article, minus.
        One-sided understanding and expression of processes. An expression of the deep processes of national formation and national unity, only in line with the current political canvas and our own, poor-quality understanding and perception of the situation as such.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 28 September 2014 06: 46
    Unfortunately, the so-called "separatism" in both Scotland and Catalonia is just such a "game" of couch patriots. These "patriots" will never do anything serious, so pop ... in a pub or bar with beer or wine, and that's it.
    1. Момент
      Момент 28 September 2014 06: 55
      The fact that reeling has begun in Europe = you can’t hide it anymore. There will be more referenda, and as soon as the first one passes, as in the Crimea, a cancerous tumor will burst here. I think that you will not envy Europe further.
      1. Very old
        Very old 28 September 2014 07: 50
        1- OLSTER, it's not over yet. These are stubborn Irish, with historical memory
        2- BELGIUM, contention (up to parliament) - The Walloons settled down for a while. For a long time?
        3- SPAIN- have the Basques resigned? Nah ... For a while. And the Catalans will not calm down
        4. Canada - Quebec Canadians are still opponents of the British Crown. "We are French." and do not want to be "subjects"

        This is my addition to the Moment post.
        1. Karabanov
          Karabanov 28 September 2014 20: 18
          "On November 9, a referendum on independence is planned in another country - in Spain, in the region of Catalonia."
          In 2009-2010 Unofficial referendum polls on the independence of Catalonia were held, in which more than 90% supported independence. (Wiki)
          So, I think the British have blown ... Bye. But with Spain everything is more complicated. The probability of independence of Catalonia is much higher.
      2. Enot-poloskun
        Enot-poloskun 28 September 2014 09: 48
        The article has written a lot about the economy as a lever to suppress national movements.

        Europe does not understand that tomorrow nationalists (Catalonia, Wallonia, Scotland ...) can be offered financial support by Russia and China.

        For the possibility of deploying military bases. And hello, Europe!

        And what? Russia has a lot of American candy wrappers. China has even more.
      3. poquello
        poquello 28 September 2014 14: 04
        I agree with you, such as the Crimean result by shifting the votes you cannot close, and there is some chance that the protest mood in Europe will begin to grow from the severity of the noodles on the ears of Europeans
    2. Smoke
      Smoke 28 September 2014 07: 37
      Don't you think that the recently emerging "parade" of referendums on sovereignty (moreover, in fairly strong European countries) is the people's response to the EU's failure, not so much as an idea, but as an embodiment of a project.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 28 September 2014 08: 07
        Quote: Smoke
        Don't you think that the recently emerging "parade" of referendums on sovereignty (moreover, in fairly strong European countries) is the people's response to the EU's failure, not so much as an idea, but as an embodiment of a project.

        I don’t know how anyone, but I don’t think so. That Scotland, that Catalonia justify their separation by the fact that they are robbed by the central government. Pure water redneck. As they say in the West - nothing personal, only business incl. everything is in the spirit of the EU ...
        1. Smoke
          Smoke 28 September 2014 15: 55
          The fact that in Catalonia, to put it mildly, marriages with Spaniards are not welcomed, you cannot call a business, everything goes much deeper, goes back to history. And the struggle of the Scots for sovereignty from the Middle Ages to the EU cannot be sewn up. But the simultaneous number of referendums at the moment leads to thought: "Not everything is normal in Europe".
  3. Name
    Name 28 September 2014 06: 47
    The return of Crimea to Russia and Novorossia is the beginning of the end of the EU. repeat
  4. Officer
    Officer 28 September 2014 07: 12
    Or the victory of New Russia, or the victory of the 5th column (which no one is fighting) in Russia. There is no third.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. saag
    saag 28 September 2014 07: 48
    Quote: Officer
    Or the victory of New Russia

    And how do you see this victory?
    1. 28 September 2014 08: 03
      Quote: saag
      And how do you see this victory?

      Seen as a victory of New Russia.
  7. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 28 September 2014 08: 09
    Bullshit all these attempts to exit and referenda in the west, no one will go anywhere, no one will separate, make noise to relieve stress, let off couples and calm down. A Westerner is not accustomed to shocks that radically change his lifestyle, to live according to the old habit , more reliable, this is not Russia for you, where in a hundred years there have been five coups, the Russian people in such troubles has been tempered and philosophical.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 28 September 2014 09: 49
      "Two from the casket", England and the USA, did not create the world capitalist system for themselves, so as not to steer the world with its help. It would be naive to believe that Scotland could go somewhere, weakening not only the power of London, but also Washington. All these games with referendums a la "democracy" are permissible for the West when they are an outright show and farce, but try to seriously separate the same Texas, and already under completely different slogans, "democratic" America will drown the process at its root in blood. The show, however, will continue, and continue with one goal - to transfer this fashionable manifestation of "freedom" and "democracy" to Russia, where Western lackeys, traitors to Russia, have long been waiting for this to be done. From the games of the West, Russia should benefit from when it is beneficial for Russia, as it was in Crimea, as it became with Novorossia, as it will be when the territory of Kievan Rus will again become a sacred Russian land, cleared of the filth of ethnic separatism.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 28 September 2014 10: 18
        It is necessary to add to the above, speaking about Crimea and Novorossia, that the fundamental difference from Scotland and other parochially selfish "secessions" in the West is that popular referendums were aimed primarily not at secession from Ukraine, but at reunification with Russia. Ukraine itself, as a territory separate from Russia, and the Ukrainians themselves, as a nation different from the Russians, are territorial and ethnic separatism, which must be fought against while maintaining the integrity of Russia. And, here behind us is historical truth and human justice.
  8. Ivanhoe
    Ivanhoe 28 September 2014 08: 37
    I partially disagree with the author - the Scots have two motives behind the desire to be independent: 1. Scotland has rich natural resources (in particular, a shelf full of hydrocarbons) during development, part of the money will go to the center (London), which is eternally poor Scots (read historical books! )I do not like !!! 2. there is also national pride (the saying "proud as a Scotsman" for many centuries of coexistence - constant submission to London could get bored! 3. in the EU, the difference for independent citizens of Scotland will be almost imperceptible (freedom of movement, work ... .) 4. there is no danger of the capture of Scotland by enemies (it was relevant before) Or maybe (in our time, everything is possible !!!) independence is needed so that hydrocarbons are not produced by the British beep but for example by an American or even some Asian oil company which is now in Scotland not even close !!! (there are enough of their own!) ie almost Iraqi, Libyan scenario!
  9. Pharao7766
    Pharao7766 28 September 2014 09: 25
    Yes, everything was immediately clear with Scotland ... The Anglo-Saxons would NEVER consent to the referendum if they were not sure that Scotland would not get anywhere from them.
    Ireland as an example of the opposite, they do not even stutter about the possibility of the Irish speaking, because the next day they will not be in Britain.
  10. Altona
    Altona 28 September 2014 11: 05

    Beautifully deduce, damn ... soldier
  11. vigor1288
    vigor1288 28 September 2014 11: 31
    Quote: Pharao7766
    Yes, everything was immediately clear with Scotland ... The Anglo-Saxons would NEVER consent to the referendum if they were not sure that Scotland would not get anywhere from them.
    Ireland as an example of the opposite, they do not even stutter about the possibility of the Irish speaking, because the next day they will not be in Britain.

    That's why Madrid started a tantrum
  12. Proud.
    Proud. 28 September 2014 11: 54
    "... In this regard, the British authorities in the case of the Scottish referendum demonstrated an enviable experience in managing the process. They successfully won the first round of the game with Scottish nationalism ..."Yeah ... Don’t be shy, brytantsy, start to thank us. laughing
  13. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 28 September 2014 12: 36
    Great interesting article. But it is difficult to agree with individual statements by the author.
    Separatist conflicts in Europe to a greater extent should be considered as a product of culture, with the condition that the latter, although it is connected, but not directly with the economy.
    Repeated stay in CATALANIA (this is how the Catalans call their country, while they are very offended when they are called Spaniards), allows me, from personal experience, to conclude that "Catalans are tired of feeding parasites from the south." 7,5 million people. (16% of the population of the country) produces 23% of Spain's GDP, while every fourth inhabitant of the autonomy is employed in industry, 2/3 - in the service sector. And I heard this idea wherever the conversation turned to self-determination of autonomy. A plebiscite ("consultations") on the independence of the region is scheduled for November 9. So there are economic reasons here. The cultural ones are undoubtedly also present, but the dominant is in the economy.
    People are interested in economic well-being,
    and it’s hard to disagree.
    The separatist aspirations in Europe and the associated nationalism are not a law of the modern stage of history.
    However, a trend has been outlined. The absence of the threat of war and enslavement in modern conditions contribute to this process.
    "The rise of autonomist and separatist movements in Europe can be traced back to the 1970s. It was then that the Flemish, Francophone and German-speaking communities of Belgium embarked on reforms that made the country one of the most decentralized in the EU. Italy granted autonomy to South Tyrol, and Spain after Franco's death encouraged self-government everywhere - from the Basque Country to the Canary Islands and Galicia, "writes the Financial Times. The referendum and the annexation of Crimea to Russia have become an additional factor in strengthening separatist sentiments in a number of regions. Following Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia, seeking to secede from Moldova, the Italian region of Veneto, (the capital of Venice), began to think about its independence. An electronic referendum was held there, which showed that the majority of the region's residents are inclined towards self-determination. In the Canadian province of Quebec, local nationalists went to the polls under the slogan of secession from Canada ... There is talk of a possible redistribution of the Far East. So, in Japan, they proposed to hold a referendum in the Kuril Islands and reminded Russia of the Green Wedge and the Ukrainian Far Eastern republics, there is a forecast that Beijing will repeat the "Crimean scenario" here. The opposition is discussing the issue of joining part of the Smolensk region to Belarus.
    In the case of the Scottish referendum, the British authorities demonstrated an enviable experience in managing the process
    Yes, to manipulate the results, to bring the people they need to the polling stations - they are great masters! Our opposition cannot even imagine such a scale of "carousels"! In this case, it turns out that you do not need to show an identity document! And these "UB..KI" will teach us democracy and monitor violations in the elections ??? With elections in Scotland, they have completely compromised themselves. Therefore, you need to drive these clowns without hesitation, and not listen to their ravings about violations in our country.
  14. Molybdenum
    Molybdenum 28 September 2014 13: 00
    This referendum is a farce! Show that democracy in Europe still exists. In fact, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the islands are different, located and subordinate to the Queen of England. And by this even having gained (in dreams) independence, they remain under the royal heel! For reference, the Queen of England has the right by her decree to cancel any decision of the parliament or court! Here it is!
  15. sv68
    sv68 28 September 2014 13: 24
    everything is very simple — any country knows how to count and understands well — the withdrawal of one or another territory — a gigantic financial outflow of money to the budget and to the economy of the rest of the country. therefore, even if the Scotlans won say 70 percent of the votes for independence, there will be falsification of counts and nobody will here and the Spaniards will say that according to the results of the referendum, Catalonia will remain part of the country, although in reality there may be 80 percent for independence. So no one will want to let people go. They only have one effective option - brother independence of weapons but this neither Scotland nor Catalonia nor any other territory wishing to be independent simply unprepared
  16. Mentor
    Mentor 28 September 2014 14: 55
    The article is interesting, I answered it with pleasure. But! I became interested in this issue, read the materials, and was very surprised that the vaunted democracies nowhere prescribed the legislative withdrawal of any region from the state !! It turns out that such a withdrawal of individual republics was recorded only in the constitutions of the disappeared states, that is, the USSR and the SFRY !! Of course, it was not specified in the subconstitutional acts, but the constitutions of other countries do not even have such a possibility! Well, Madrid's statements about the impossibility of even a consultative referendum in Catalonia is, in my opinion, a clear answer to all our liberals, about any "freedoms" in Western countries.
  17. Fox hound
    Fox hound 28 September 2014 16: 04
    The article is a bit complicated (I had to think about each phrase), but very competent.
  18. Viktor Kudinov
    Viktor Kudinov 29 September 2014 06: 13
    Even strong families get divorced. Well, it was that we loved each other. Love has passed - the tomatoes have withered. To preserve the union of peoples, and even strongly mixed, seems to be positive: for Spain with Catalonia, for England with Scotland, and for Russia with Ukraine. But to keep in the same family the "spouses" who do not love each other is ridiculous. These are constant claims to each other, scandals, etc. Only complete freedom can heal the ambitions of nationalists. But then in a "civil marriage" they can be put into frames so that they behave like silk.