NHS really deserves more credit, even for the small things.

@thewindupbirdchronicles The UK is not trying to extend its sovereignty, by definition: [i]United [/i]Kingdom. It is not trying to take over France or Belgium as well! It has been united for some centuries, too; but Eire and Northern Ireland separated early in the 20C.

The UK Government has given the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh governments considerable autonomy, as well as a lot of tax-payers' money; hence these awkward and frankly needless, minor differences cooked up by the devolved administrations just to be different.

Just how popular the idea of full independence is, I don't know. It's not an overwhelming majority by any means - there are plenty of people proud to be of those nations, but who also wish to stay British.

Particularly ironically, the SNP wants Scotland ruled not by its immediate and known neighbour in London, but by the EU. That is physically twice as far away in Brussels and an order of magnitude more distant politically and financially. Perhaps the SNP gambles on the EU letting it join anyway, and then it not an EU "nett contributor" (as was the UK, along with France, Italy and Germany), but propped up by all the other EU's tax-payers.

Aside from that, under full, own control these countries would have to create and support fully all their own public services. It's not just prescription pills!
- Entire national systems of health, welfare, education, transport, police, military, judiciary; treasury, currency, banking, and the taxes to support everything.
- Border and [i]many [/i]other arrangements with the England the home-rulers take from but despise.
- A huge raft of international agreements and memberships*, diplomatic corps, foreign policies.
- Agreements on UK-based systems like the MoD bases, railways and utility networks.
They are strangely silent on all these marks of the modern State.

....

*How many? Very many. Not only the obvious ones like the Commonwealth, UN, NATO and ISO - and the EU if its citizens and the [i]bloc[/i] want each other. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland belongs to or is a signatory to, roughly [i]ninety[/i] international bodies and treaties covering a vast range of international co-operative activities; and has diplomatic links with most countries.

@ArishMell Be passionate about it, but how different classes belong within the UK, if you are from the England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland really suggests another idea.... It's not that hard to see. I'm from Canada, imagine if Canada offered less to Quebec?

@ArishMell And PS, Canada debates every day if we should recognize the commonwealth and I'm in support, but it doesn't make it a source of empathy in me to the UK. It's more the systems presented outside don't work. And I wouldn't say that if the UK was not hands off of us. It's a lesser of evil arrangement.

I suggest stopping looking down and they would have found their means.

@ArishMell What you may not understand I see the wealth and I also see the wealth, I live in a very independent country. One harder to keep together in distance, I'm sure Ireland, Scotland could have found their wealth in independence easier, but they were a larger threat to England. You make me want Canada to become dissident from the UK if you can't recognize it was a practice of colonizing countries England ever thought it was superior.

@thewindupbirdchronicles I see what you mean: the situation may be similar.

It's not a matter of class in the old way though. Even the very existence of traditional "class" these days is rather doubtful, and often exaggerated for campaigning effect. The more common cliche now is not "working class" but "hard-working families" - but both mean only that the family's income is from wages or salaries... so at Minimum Living Wage or senior Directors' level?

Regardless of background or bank accounts, people anywhere are naturally loyal to their own countries. Usually this is fine but separatist demands are often a peculiar tangle of politics and romance, and overlook practicalities.

Those include the need to co-exist even at simple day-to-day levels with the original nation; while also having to pay its own way without that nation's financial and practical support. "Day-to-day" level can be as simple as individuals crossing the notional border for school, commuting, shopping or socialising.

The overall hazard is of impoverishing both the"old" and "new" countries, and in many ways far beyond just money.


(I cited the EU because a nation's membership involves paying enormous fees from its own taxes, then receiving directed subsidies for industrial, cultural and scientific purposes. The subsidies are [i]all [/i]tax-funded; as are the[i]bloc[/i]'s (secret?) running-costs. If they total more than the "subscription" the country is a nett recipient, but if not, the country is a nett contributor. The UK being one of the few latter was one of many reasons that many Britons voted to leave the EU - but in a very close overall vote with strong and sometimes surprising regional divisions.)

@ArishMell Maybe. But I'm not sure highlighting the classes part works with what you are promoting. Canada, a sovereign nation, yet under the commonwealth umbrella, has universal health care regardless of where you live. It promotes to me Ireland and Scotland would do better without being under the guise of England and it's less about class other than somehow your words promote England is above. If you had not placed them under your rule, how would we be seeing we helped you, you must thank us for we are benevolent to be seen?

It's a privileged attitude. I'll thank the UK for once giving us Independence as we figured it out better.