Furthermore, it is also misleading for union to pertain to Britain and the Netherlands, and even Deutschland (i.e., Bundes) because they are states in a union that treats them as unitary members of the European Council. The root of the problem here is that the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany had each been formed out of medieval kingdoms that were once sovereign. Even if they the three E.U. states are decentralized or federal in governance, they are equivalent to other E.U. states.
So to refer to the E.U. state of Britain as a union of countries is incorrect and utterly misleading in the modern world in which "union" refers to empire-scale federal polities. To refer to a state in one modern empire-scale (and level) union as somehow commensurate with another modern empire-scale (and level) union evinces not only pretention, but an illogical category mistake as well, and to think that Britain is somehow equivalent to the E.U. is logically contradictory because the United Kingdom is a state in the E.U.
To be sure, U.S. Government officials enable this category mistake by refusing to correspond to their counterparts in the federal executive and legislative branches of E.U. So we should not blame just the Europeans for being able to get away with playing word-games in discussing whether a region of the United Kingdom should break off.
Scotland is no more a nation or country than is Normandy, Holland, Flanders, or Bavaria. Although some of the American states have particular regional cultures too, such regions are also not nations. Republics like California, New York, and Illinois are so heterogeneous that they, like Britain, should perhaps consider devolution or even partition. Indeed, California and Illinois have each had more than one secession or partition movement on account of internal cultural and political differences. This doesn't mean that Northern California is somehow a nation--or, for that matter, that Scotland is one.
The importance of a state in the E.U. or U.S. splitting into two is mitigated if the two resulting states are to be in the same union. Of course, this wouldn't hold if one of the resulting states does not stay in the union. However, as independent states like Switzerland do not enjoy much international weight precisely because they are not in a union of modern states, the partition of a state that is in a union is likely to result in two states in place of one in the same union (which the other states in that union are apt to resist as the two-for-one reduces their power in the empire-level union body wherein states are represented).
Therefore, the importance of whether the United Kingdom decentralizes further or splits into two states is less now that the E.U. has gained some governmental sovereignty that has been delegated by the states. This should sound familiar to American constitutional lawyers. Lest it be thought that Scotland enjoys any such sovereignty, the Telegraph reported that “Cameron has overruled . . . Moore's insistence that there would have to be two referendums before Scotland should break away.”[2] According to the paper, “Salmond wants to give Scots a number of options in his referendum – a choice between the status quo, more devolution or giving his administration approval to negotiate the terms of independence. The Prime Minister is deeply unhappy about this prospect, believing it to be confusing and unlikely to lead to a clear – cut verdict. Instead he wants the voters to be asked a simple question, along the following lines: ‘Do you wish Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?’ [A source at Westminster] commented: ‘Mr Salmond must be honest and straightforward with the Scottish people in his phrasing of the question for the referendum. If he isn't we will conduct the referendum.’”[3]
However, giving voters a choice of the status quo, more decentralization, and partition is hardly confusing; to contend so is to have no respect for popular sovereignty. In other words, if citizens in a representative democracy cannot understand this simple tripartite choice, how can the elected representatives claim to have any respect for their constituents who elected them? Cameron was engaging in word-games, deliberately obscuring the issue by claiming he was avoiding an ambiguity.
I would counter that to refer to Britain as a nation even as Scotland is one, while California and Texas are not, is also inconsistent. The world is no longer in the medieval times; England and Scotland came to parts of the host kingdom (and now state) in an empire. Today, neither England nor Scotland (nor Holland or Bavaria) is a country or nation. Being a region or province in a modern-kingdom-scale state connotes a particular cultural identity within that of the state. To claim that Scotland is a nation or country while Holland is a province in a nation or country is short-sighted and presumptuous, as well as utterly self-serving. The same applies to claiming that Britain, a state in the E.U., is somehow equivalent to the E.U. or U.S. as yet another union of semi-sovereign states. Here's how I would word the referendum for the Scottish region of Britain: "Do you think Scotland should break off from the U.K.? If Scotland does break off, should it become a state in the E.U.?"
In conclusion, the problem with word-playing in the context of politics is that the resulting category-mistakes preempt useful comparisons and ensuing lessons. In regard to the Scottish region of the E.U. state of Britain, Salmond’s referendum proposal proffering the choice of status quo, more decentralization, or breaking off seems reasonable. Salmond could even add another question, whether the United Kingdom should, like the E.U. state of Germany, be itself federal. States of federal unions being federal is in line with Althusius’ (Political Digest, 1604) theory of federalism, which is based on the Holy Roman Empire and has the province, kingdom, realm, and imperial levels each being federations. The large American states might thus want to consider adopting the federal governance system for themselves, wherein their respective regions would become semi-sovereign. Applied political theory is in great need of logic to act as a check on cultural and political ideology.
