That is some of the biggest bullcrap ever told about Britain and i'm sick of it. I didn't mention ethnic background but that's certainly one characteristic of a nation - and Britain has experienced, until the 1950s, very little immigration apart from an invasion or two in a thousand years. Britain is actually ethnically one of the most untouched nations in history owing to it's status as an island nation much like Japan. This kind of garbage you have spouted is routinely repeated in support of mass immigration and it's simply
not true. You can see a debunking of this argument in this video from 2:25 to 3:40......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehGhwfd4sM
In terms of culture, yes the United Kingdom is a monoculture. Sure there are different sub regional cultures from Yorkshire to Wales, but broadly enough people believe in Britishness enough for it to remain under the same political and legal system. That is why it works, it survives by consent. There are signs of this breaking down mind you with Scottish independence, but broadly speaking it remains a monocultural state for the time being.
The countries I mentioned which are proper nation states contain a people within that consider themselves a part of one another, culturally similar enough to operate within the same political & legal system. This is very strong in France and the same in Germany (which unified late on) as well as the others I mentioned. Those which I said could not be considered proper countries are not proper countries for the reason that most of their borders were imposed by politicians and are purely artificial to mark long gone spheres of influence. The badly drawn borders between Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are a key example of this whereby the British and French drew invented borders across the map. Iraq and Syria are the worst, being drawn directly across the dividing line between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of the Assad family in Syria, what I am saying is coming into fruitation: they are disintegrating states.
Follow any of the political crisises in these countries and you'll come to see what I am saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2...litical_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2...abian_protests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...us-region.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-viole...215-32slz.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tegration.html
Yugoslavia is the key example of how throwing people together in false countries can go horribly wrong, as after WWI politicians threw the diverse states of the Balkans together in a new 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' (totally invented) and left them to get along with it..... with disasterous consquences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia It's often said that Yugoslavia is a prototype of a federal Europe, and I agree. Belgium is another example of a fake state that was created after a war, and although it's survived for a couple of hundred years it is on it's last legs as even with a federal system it's at breaking point.
Borders and countries are not simply invented as many on the left may think in line with their internationalism, they [borders] are there to reflect dividing lines between differing cultures as if one if rational you can see that a parliament drawn from both the UK and Saudi Arabia wouldn't work as we are complete opposites. Of course though, when borders
are invented it turns out to be a disaster rather than the utopia that was intended.
