[recuter]

He used the term not in reference to the actual balkan geographical area.

In the real world there are world powers that benefit from a unified Europe with strong central authority and those that don't. Brexit serves the interests of the later. Scottish independence would further those interests still.

Catalan independence weakens Spain and by extension NATO.

This is not a statement on the morality of such movements or whether they might be a good idea in the narrow sense for Scots, Catalans, the people of Flanders and so forth. Rather it is a look at the larger map and unintended consequences.

Finally, as to what is actually happening in the Balkans - the state of affairs between Kosovo and Albania (ironically they might form a union) and Bosnia is.. not fantastic to say the least.

Sadly memories are short and attitudes are cavalier.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Scottish independence would further those interests still.

> Catalan independence weakens Spain and by extension NATO.

Why? Does any of these actually want to leave NATO?

Or is this just a generic conservative position "change causes political instability, political instability bad therefore change bad"? ?

[recuter]

Divide et impera

I am not a conservative. Your attitude itself is an example of the division and political instability.

The SNP (love them or hate them, I don't care): "an independent Scotland would prioritise the speediest possible safe removal of nuclear weapons."

Say this populist party has its William Wallace moment, now what is left of the UK will have to disentangle itself militarily. It will certainly be a politically heated moment in time, I'm sure you're aware of Russian interference in these things if nothing else as agents of chaos - Voilà.

It is certainly easier to agitate an independent small country to force the Brits to move their nuclear subs.

You can be all for Scottish independence conceptually, morally, whatever - and still be concerned about the whole board.

[tremon]

an independent Scotland would prioritise the speediest possible safe removal of nuclear weapons

This is disingenuous without giving the context of that quote. The UK's nuclear submarines are stored in Scotland, near Edinburgh (the Forth estuary). The Scottish people don't want those nukes there, both because of the inherent danger these missiles pose, and because it paints a target on their head.

The SNP's position is that if the English want to keep their nukes, they should keep them in England. That's what "removal" refers to here, it is not about forcing the English to disarm.

[recuter]

If you read my comment carefully that is exactly what I said..

[AshamedCaptain]

Yes but your argument loses quite a lot of value, since I hardly see a reason for "destabilization" just for wanting some nuclear subs out.

[recuter]

GP: "Balkanization is the wet dream of several national adversaries (speaking generically)"

Response: "But the balkan countries want to join the EU, which is anti-Brexitesque which is the thing that I oppose and wish to grind my axe about. Checkmate!"

Me: "What he is talking about is that there are world powers that benefit from a unified Europe with strong central authority and those that don't."

Response: "You're a conservative!"

Me: "I am not a conservative. This is about divide and conquer. It is easier to take on multiple smaller adversaries that are preoccupied with in-fighting.

For example, I am neither pro nor against Scottish independence, but as part of that process the main political party involved has stated it will attempt to remove nuclear subs from its newly controlled territory - which will harm the British defence posture - for populist reasons and to the sole long term benefit of their adversaries"

Response: "This is disingenuous! It isn't about forcing the English to disarm, just to move!"

Me: "I said move.."

Response: "OK, fine you said move. But! Your argument loses quite a lot of value, since I personally don't understand the negative impact of moving subs"

I give up comrade.