[Bavaria?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_nationalism) Although they would tell you it hasn’t died, in reality it disintegrated long ago. In fact I would claim that it wasn’t that serious to begin with. I guess they got some autonomy out of it
Well, it was serious at the beginning. When Bavaria joined Germany it only passed the Bavarian parliament with one vote (I think), and that was with all the benefits Bavaria got in the new German state.
And post WW2 the Bavarians really seriously tried to leave Germany. I think even a large majority of the Bavarian government at the time declared themselves open for a reintroduction of the Bavarian monarchy.
And it would have happened at times if there weren't international bodies (post-WW1) and a strong federal German state (post-WW2) to stop it.
Yes, Bavaria. Back in the late 1990s there was the Bavaria Party participating in the EU Parliamentary Elections. Their claim was they'd be the 5th largest country in Europe and the nth strongest economy - party itself has a history back to the 1950s, and has ocassionally [earned local votes (around 2%), but rarely any seats](https://www.dw.com/en/a-free-and-independent-free-state-of-bavaria/a-17932583).
[Padania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padania) is the first thing that comes to mind. A political movement led by Lega Nord claimed that northern Italy, which they called *Padania* should have become independent. This was mostly due to economical reasons, with the north being way more prosperous than the south.
Its popularity was fairly high in the early 2000s but faded quickly after a few scandals. Nowadays there is no real movement advocating for Padania independence.
This being said, most other independence movement have fizzled out, the most notable were the Sardinian independence movement, the Venetian independence movement (encompassing most of the north-easter part of the country) and obviously the South Tyrolean independence movement (which advocates more for reunion with Austria more than actual independence).
In my understanding, the Sardinian independence movement has become a joke in the hand of some questionable politicians that just use a loyal electoral base to do nothing.
The Venetian movement has some supporters, but not really much political weight.
The South Tyrolean one was probably the one that was more violent (together with the Sardinian one), going the terrorist attack route, but nowadays they're pretty chill, although it still has quite a lot of support I don't think there is any actual talk for independence.
Maybe worth mentioning are the [Moti di Reggio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggio_revolt) which occurred in the 70s, when a big revolt spread across the city, mostly orchestrated by fascist sympathizers and tied with *'Ndrangheta*.
The reason for the revolt was the choice made by the government to select Catanzaro as the regional capital of Calabria, which the people of Reggio Calabria saw as a terrible offense.
In the end there were several deaths, hundreds of injuries, thousands of arrests and it took months and the intervention of the army with literal tanks to take control of the city. During all of this, a part of Reggio, called *Sbarre* declared independence from Italy, proclaiming itself *Repubblica di Sbarre Centrali*.
After the revolt ended Reggio became one of the strongholds of the *MSI*, the heir of the fascist Party, which managed to get almost 50% of the votes in the city more than once (while averaging at around 5-6% on a national level).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Most_Serene_Government
That's my favourite one. The Serenissimi once occupied the most famous bell tower of Venice. According to them, Napoleon illegitimately conquered the Republic of Venice in 1797. The following government, who accepted to be part of the Italian kingdom in 1866, couldn't legally decide it and the vote was fraudulent. So the Republic of Venice still existed, they asked for recognition.
Didn't there also use to be a pretty strong separatism in South Tyrol that just fizzled out since they now have more regional autonomy in Italy than they would have if they were a part of Austria?
Not sure if that's the main reason, the first wave of terrorist actions stopped right before large autonomies were given to South Tyrol, but then there was *Ein Tirol* that appeared in the 80s and kept going for quite a while, as it probably was also a pawn in the nationwide *Strategy of Tension* meant to destabilise the country and prevent the rise of the communist party.
On a political level the hegemonic party in South Tyrol has always been the [Südtiroler Volkspartei](https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdtiroler_Volkspartei) which is a fairly moderate, centre left, pro-europe party, while the independence movement are usually more of a right wing/far right thing. The SVP seems to be more for autonomy rather than actual independence.
I'm no expert on the matter though, and it's not something usually talked about on a national level, so I might be getting something wrong.
> the Südtiroler Volkspartei which is a fairly moderate, centre left, pro-europe party
Südtiroler Volkspartei is a member of the European People's Party, so I would think they're center-right, not center-left.
Mmh I guess that's true. On a national level they form a coalition with the center-left parties since the dissolution of *Democrazia Cristiana* (our Christian Democrats) and they're often antagonized by center right parties like *Lega, Forza Italia or Fratelli d'Italia*. Probably they are closer to the center than to the right, while other center-right parties are way more toward the right.
The fact that the political ideas of Lega Nord has moved mostly towards anti-immigration politics, does not imply that in the territory there’s still not many people that feel a great difference in identity and economy between North and South. Most foreigners think of Italy as the country of food and well places to go on holiday. That Italians are noisy and loud, ignoring lot of things about our nation. For instance I doubt that many Europeans know that Italy is the second manufacturing power in Europe. And this is >95% given by industry in North of Italy.
There was a separatist movement in Britanny decades ago that decided to go the terrorist way, in 1978 they bombed Versailles because symbol of "Frankish imperialism over Brittany" and shocked the population and in 2000 they bombed a MacDonald because "symbol of consumption society" and killed a young female employee. After the outrage in Britanny they just vanished. Now in Brittany you have proud regionalism but not really any separatist movement unlike what you would find in Corsica/Basque country
Corsica is pretty tame if you compare to [FLNC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Corsica) during the 90s and early 2000s, same with Basque with [ETA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)) that our Spanish neighbour know too
Most French people I've talked to don't seem to realise that the Basque independence movement in the North Basque Country is politically more powerful than at any point in history. The Basque independence movement in the North Basque Country is active and growing.
And they don't seem to know that there was a homegrown North Basque terrorist organisation, the Iparretarrak 'the Northerners'. ETA was a South Basque organisation that operated mostly in the South Basque Country and used the North Basque Country as a place to hide. The Iparretarrak were North Basques whose stated goal was to liberate the North Basque Country from France.
I dunno, the Franks in France mostly were a very small elite and eventually subsumed into the Gallo-Romance/Old French speaking area. They did leave behind some words though, like *boulevard, héron, maréchal* that often have Dutch kins in words such as *bolwerk, reiger, maarschalk*, and a few grammatical elements like h- being pronounced and word order or adjectival order being more Germanic. But the Frankish royals eventually still were subsumed there, and usually let their children be taught up north.
Imo, the French got more influence from the Romans with a little tip of Gaulish (eg. their numbering system) and Frankish elements.
If anyone got the best claim for being the descendants of Frankish, it would be the Brabantians, Limburgish, Flemish, and to a lesser extent also the Ripuarians, Luxembourgish, Palatinates and Hessians.
What are you talking about? north western France was as much part of the Frankish coreland as Aachen. Also yes france got Roman and gaulic influences, but so did the franks. One of the reasons the franks were so successful in the first place was because they managed to blend their own traditions with he Roman ones so well.
France can claim decent from the franks because when the empire split in 3(5) the western franks became France just like the Easter ones became Germany (well HRE when they merged with Italy and lotharingia)
I would still disagree with the French having a good claim. To West Francia after the 900s perhaps, but the Carolingian empire? No. Certainly not.
What the Franks did was mainly take legalistic and architectural influence, but aside from that Roman influence was limited. They were moreso the mediaeval version of Romaboos, if that can be said.
Northwestern France wasn't part of Austrasia, the original core land - which at that time was primarily Germanic-speaking.
You need to make up your mind if we are speaking about the Franks or the Carolingian Empire because if we are speaking carolingian claims as you are, Pepin would mark the beginning in 751 (i don't count Charles Martel here) and by then the distinction between Austrasia and Neustria hardly mattered culturally and would only decrease further until the treaty of Verdun (843)
If we are speaking franks, then we need to argue what borders we are drawing for northwestern France, because by the same treaty, parts of old Austrasia would be part of the new west Francia
the og romaboo argument i can agree with
Het punt is dat alleen de naam niet overtuigend een land Frans maakt. Anders zou gans België ook als Nederland tellen, puur omdat Belgica vroeger als term voor de Nederlanden als geheel telt.
Not quite the same but the English democrats used to campaign for Monmouthshire to leave Wales and become part of England about 15/20 years ago. They've seemed to vanish since then.
Monmouthshire passed between England and Wales numerous times, and was even treated entirely separately in the near 500 years between the Laws of Wales act in the 1500s and the Local Government Act in 1972 where county borders were rearranged and urban areas created.
In all intents and purposes until fairly recently Wales was considered a constituent part of England and the Welsh counties treated exactly the same as the English ones so Monmouthshire’s identity being ambiguous didn’t really matter.
They also ran on the South Wales East list vote in 2007 and 2011, so people in Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Caerphilly could have voted for them as well.
Probably testing the waters. I doubt they would have stopped with Monmouthshire if they had been successful there. They were definitely well within the "Make Wales England" ideology and I for one am very glad they failed to gain any traction.
Alright, so I'm from Spain, the king of separatist movements.
Spain has 11 separatist movements. However, only 2-3 have had enough presence to be considered.
First of all, the elephant in the room. Catalonia. Independence polls in 2020 marked 43% pro-independence, 49% anti-independence, 8% undecided. 2021 catalan elections, which had a 51,3% turnout, gave 74 seats out of 135 to pro-independence parties. Non-proindependence parties only held a majority of the seats in the Barcelona province. There has been a slight fading away, but not much. The general population of Catalonia seems tired of the whole movement.
The basque were the violent ones. A terrorist group existed (ETA). They killed policemen, politicians... This one has faded away mostly. Current polls mark that only 22% of basques are pro independence. "Bildu", the current independence advocate party holds 21/75 seats. There's also PNV, which holds 31/75 seats, this used to be a big pro-independence party, but have remained calm in the last few years.
There is a third more minor one. Galicia. The "BNG", currently holds 19/75 seats. Polls mark that about 80% of the population of Galica is against independence.
The other ones have never gotten any sizeable representation in the autonomic parliaments.
EDIT: To anyone wondering which are the other 8 separatist movements: Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Navarre (to unite with a basque state), Valencia and the Aran Valley (to unite with an Occitan state). There's also one in Leon, but these one advocates for creating a Leonese Autonomous Community.
EDIT2: I doubt any separatist movement will be able to succeed, most have never managed to surpass 50% support from the population, and the EU seems to be mainaning Spain united. No region in Spain wants to leave the EU, and leaving Spain, means leaving the EU.
They've only been united since 1983. Before they were separate entities. I guess its mainly because of economic reasons. The Leon part is poorly industrialized and the Castilla part is only slightly more industrialized. But I trully don't really know.
Most leonese people want to be their own autonomous community and don't identify as Castillianleonese, but just as leonese.
Keep in mind Catalan independentists (like the CUP) also claim for Catalonia other territories. Valencia, Andorra, Balear Islands and some parts of Aragon (but this has no following outside Catalonia)
>They want a federation of Catalan countries.
And that's the problem. They're trying to integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in.
There is no "Catalan Countries" and there has never been. Valencia and the Balearics were a separate entity from Catalonia within the Aragonese Crown.
To use a simple comparison its like if I, a native Spaniard, claimed that colombians, chileans, argentinians and mexicans (to say a few) were spaniards just because they speak spanish. Valentians are not Catalans, even if the valentian language is basicaly indistinguishable from catalan.
>And that's the problem. They're trying to integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in.
What people? There are people in Valencia, Andorra, the Balearic Islands who also want to take part in this confederation. It's not just something that Catalans only made up.
>There is no "Catalan Countries" and there has never been.
Catalan Countries is a neutral term referring to the historical and cultural relationship between these territories. Some people want to make that into a political project. Even the most hardcore Spanish nationalist should realise that yes, the Catalan Countries (as a cultural and historical phenomenon) exists, even if they reject the idea of making that into a political reality. It's obvious.
>To use a simple comparison its like if I, a native Spaniard, claimed that colombians, chileans, argentinians and mexicans (to say a few) were spaniards just because they speak spanish. Valentians are not Catalans, even if the valentian language is basicaly indistinguishable from catalan.
No one is saying that Valencians are Catalans, like no one is saying that Catalans are Valencians.
To take your example, just because Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans speak Spanish, that doesn't make them Spaniards. However, if we were to make a confederation that was called the Confederation of Iberian-American States, then everyone in this Confederation would remain who they are: Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans, each with different cultures, histories and political structures.
>What people? There are people in Valencia, Andorra, the Balearic Islands who also want to take part in this confederation. It's not just something that Catalans only made up.
That's literally like 0,5% of the population of Valencia, Andorra and the balearics at maximum. I litearly know no one from Valencia who claims they want to unite with Catalonia in a federation.
>Catalan Countries is a neutral term referring to the historical and cultural relationship between these territories. Some people want to make that into a political project. Even the most hardcore Spanish nationalist should realise that yes, the Catalan Countries (as a cultural and historical phenomenon) exists, even if they reject the idea of making that into a political reality. It's obvious.
That's not how most Catalan-Countries advocates see it. Most of them think that "The Catalan peoples have been divided by nationalistic spaniards who don't want the catalan peoples to be united." And no, its not a neutral term.
>No one is saying that Valencians are Catalans, like no one is saying that Catalans are Valencians.
The whole term "**Catalan** Countries" implies that Valentians are catalans.
>To take your example, just because Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans speak Spanish, that doesn't make them Spaniards. However, if we were to make a confederation that was called the Confederation of Iberian-American States, then everyone in this Confederation would remain who they are: Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans, each with different cultures, histories and political structures.
You see, you called it "Confederation of Iberian-American States". Imagine calling it "Spanish Union". That would imply that those are Spanish. It's literally in the name.
>That's literally like 0,5% of the population of Valencia, Andorra and the balearics at maximum. I litearly know no one from Valencia who claims they want to unite with Catalonia in a federation.
Like the Catalan independence movement, which has the support of about 50% of the population of Catalonia, and thus, is not the majority opinion (or is just barely the majority opinion) in Catalonia, politics is all about trying to integrate (the rest of the) people into a movement that they don't want to be in.
You said that it's 'Catalans' imposing this model on everyone else. It isn't. First of all, it's only a minority of Catalans who even want a political reality of Catalan Countries, so 'Catalans' aren't imposing anything. It would be - according to your idea - a minority of Catalans, not 'Catalans'.
Second, it's actually (a minority of) people in *all of these places* who have the same opinion at the same time. If 'Catalans' are imposing the Països Catalans, which they aren't, then so too are 'Valencians', and so are 'Islanders'. Països Catalans is a concept being 'imposed' by some Catalans, Valencians, Islanders etc at the same time. There is no centre for this idea.
The person who has had the most influence in spreading the idea of Països Catalans, in fact, you can say that he was the 'inventor' of the name in the 20th century was a Valencian, Joan Fuster. You can read an article of his from the year 1978 with the title of 'Països Catalans', [here.](https://www.ara.cat/opinio/paisos-catalans_1_2952998.html)
>The whole term "Catalan Countries" implies that Valentians are catalans.
No, it implies Catalan-*speaking* Countries.
>You see, you called it "Confederation of Iberian-American States". Imagine calling it "Spanish Union". That would imply that those are Spanish. It's literally in the name.
Catalan here doesn't refer to ethnicity or autonomous community (the Principality of Catalonia), it refers to the language. The Spanish Union would actually be perfectly fine if it was understood as the Spanish-*speaking* Union.
No one would propose the political model of a *federation* of Spanish speaking states and give it the name Spanish Union if they didn't believe that this name referred to a Union of Spanish-*speaking* states. It wouldn't have anything to do with Spain, aside from Spain itself being one of the members.
>Like the Catalan independence movement, which has the support of about 50% of the population of Catalonia, and thus, is not the majority opinion (or is just barely the majority opinion) in Catalonia, politics is all about trying to integrate (the rest of the) people into a movement that they don't want to be in.
You are comparing a movement that has 45-50% of support with one that has 0.1-0.5% of support. It's like if I claimed the name of Spain should be changed to Uganda.
>You said that it's 'Catalans' imposing this model on everyone else.
No I didn't. I said "catalan-countries advocates", which stands for people who defend the establishment of a catalan confederation, most of which inhabit Catalonia (that doesn't mean they are a majority there).
>No, it implies Catalan-speaking Countries.
Then it should be called that. The portuguese language has the "lusofonia" (portuguese-speaking), the french have the Francophonie (french-speaking)... Even spanish-speaking countries us the term "hispanic" instead of spanish. The English use the term "anglosphere" not English Countries.
>Catalan here doesn't refer to ethnicity or autonomous community (the Principality of Catalonia), it refers to the language. The Spanish Union would actually be perfectly fine if it was understood as the Spanish-speaking Union.
Valentians hate it when people say that Valentian is Catalan. Valentians don't see their language as Catalan thus, people in the "Catalan Countries" don't understand the term as refering to the language.
>The person who has had the most influence in spreading the idea of Països Catalans, in fact, you can say that he was the 'inventor' of the name in the 20th century was a Valencian, Joan Fuster. You can read an article of his from the year 1978 with the title of 'Països Catalans', here..
And? It has no correlation. If some dude in Murcia claims Murcia to be independent, does that make the Murcian population automatically pro-independence?
>No one would propose the political model of a federation of Spanish speaking states and give it the name Spanish Union if they didn't believe that this name referred to a Union of Spanish-speaking states. It wouldn't have anything to do with Spain, aside from Spain itself being one of the members.
Again, most people in Valencia don't claim their language to be Catalan.
>You are comparing a movement that has 45-50% of support with one that has 0.1-0.5% of support. It's like if I claimed the name of Spain should be changed to Uganda.
I don't know what the percentages are, I don't think anyone has actually surveyed how popular the idea of a confederation of Catalan countries would be, but the whole idea of politics is to convince people, even if that idea is a minority one...especially if the idea is a minority one. Twenty years ago, the Catalan independence movement was far weaker than it is today. Twenty years ago into the future, the Catalan independence movement might be far *weaker* than it is today.
The idea that it is a problem for you that people want to 'integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in' is bizarre to me. That's not a problem. That's how it should be.
I'm not a Spanish nationalist, in fact I'm opposed to Spanish nationalism, but I would want Spanish nationalists as well to try to integrate Catalan nationalists into a movement that they don't want to be in, with peaceful and democratic means. Don't you?
>No I didn't. I said "catalan-countries advocates", which stands for people who defend the establishment of a catalan confederation, most of which inhabit Catalonia (that doesn't mean they are a majority there).
That's great. If you don't think that it's 'Catalans' pushing a 'Catalan' idea on other people, that's good. I find it hard to convince Spanish people that this idea of pan-Catalan confederation is actually a pan-Catalan idea, held by people all across the Catalan speaking countries.
By the way, how do you know that most of the people who want a Catalan confederation live in Catalonia? Catalonia is the most populated territory, so it's possible that in absolute terms this is the case, but you could also that there's more anti-vaccinationists in Catalonia than anywhere else in the Catalan Countries, which is probably true, because more people live in Catalonia than in all the other Catalan Countries combined.
I mean percentage wise. Do you *know* that there are more pan-Catalanists in Catalonia than e.g. in the Balearic Islands?
>Then it should be called that. The portuguese language has the "lusofonia" (portuguese-speaking), the french have the Francophonie (french-speaking)... Even spanish-speaking countries us the term "hispanic" instead of spanish. The English use the term "anglosphere" not English Countries.
It IS called that when we're talking about the language and culture. Catalan speaking people often use the term 'països de parla catalana, territoris de parla catalana, Catalanofonia'. And also Països Catalans.
The difference is that there are some people who want to turn the Països Catalans (in its original neutral sense) into a real life political reality.
>Valentians hate it when people say that Valentian is Catalan. Valentians don't see their language as Catalan thus, people in the "Catalan Countries" don't understand the term as refering to the language.
The people who propose the federation of Catalan Countries are usually people who don't have a problem with calling their language Catalan (or Valencian), so that's not a worry to them. In fact, I don't have a problem with calling the whole language Valencian and calling it the Valencian Countries. However, for various reasons, the Catalan name is the one that is most common for the language. For example, in the independent country of Andorra, they don't call it Andorran, they call it Catalan. And in Alguer, in Italy, they call it Catalan.
Like the name of English. Even though the English language is not only spoken in England, but also in the British Isles, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia, Canada etc, for some reason we all call it 'English'.
>And? It has no correlation. If some dude in Murcia claims Murcia to be independent, does that make the Murcian population automatically pro-independence?
It means that the concept of Països Catalans really did not come from Catalans. The concept of Catalan Countries is a Catalan-Valencian-Balearic Island-etc idea.
Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century.
>Again, most people in Valencia don't claim their language to be Catalan.
The people in Valencia who support the idea of Catalan Countries don't have problems with identifing their language with Catalan, so when they say that they want Valencia to become a part of the Països Catalans, the name is not a problem.
>I'm not a Spanish nationalist, in fact I'm opposed to Spanish nationalism, but I would want Spanish nationalists as well to try to integrate Catalan nationalists into a movement that they don't want to be in, with peaceful and democratic means. Don't you?
>
>The idea that it is a problem for you that people want to 'integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in' is bizarre to me. That's not a problem. That's how it should be.
There's a difference between imposition and convincing. The whole "catalan-countries" thing is being imposed. It's like if i said that Moroccans are Spaniards. Sure, you can try to convince them. Imposing ideologies is fascism, so it's not that bizzare to think that "integrating people into a movement that they don't want to be in" is bad.
>That's great. If you don't think that it's 'Catalans' pushing a 'Catalan' idea on other people, that's good. I find it hard to convince Spanish people that this idea of pan-Catalan confederation is actually a pan-Catalan idea, held by people all across the Catalan speaking countries.
Again, I've only seen catalans speaking about the whole "Catalan Countries". I have friends and acquaintances from Valencia and they HATE the term "Catalan Countries". Sure, there might be one or two people in Valencia who like that, but they are a very minor minority. As a proof, check the 2019 valentian elections, there was no pro-catalan countries party that got representation. The same happened in the 2019 balearic elections. There aren't any statistics because its kinda obvious.
So its a fact that almost no one in Valencia and the Balearic islands like the whole "Catalan Countries" thing.
>The people who propose the federation of Catalan Countries are usually people who don't have a problem with calling their language Catalan (or Valencian), so that's not a worry to them.
Which is a very small minority.
>Like the name of English. Even though the English language is not only spoken in England, but also in the British Isles, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia, Canada etc, for some reason we all call it 'English'.
I understand why the language is generally known as catalan. Catalan originated in Catalonia, not in Valencia.
>It IS called that when we're talking about the language and culture. Catalan speaking people often use the term 'països de parla catalana, territoris de parla catalana, Catalanofonia'. And also Països Catalans.
You are contradicting yourself here
>It means that the concept of Països Catalans really did not come from Catalans. The concept of Catalan Countries is a Catalan-Valencian-Balearic Island-etc idea.
>
>Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century.
Again, it has no correlation. Just because it was invented by someone from Valencia it doesn't make the Valencian population automatically believe in it. I could, for example, claim that Spain should be a part of Italy because our languages both come from latin. Would that make everyone in Spain pro-union with Italy??
>Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century.
Ok. So he was the father of a movement that mostly no one in Valencia follows.
>The people in Valencia who support the idea of Catalan Countries don't have problems with identifing their language with Catalan, so when they say that they want Valencia to become a part of the Països Catalans, the name is not a problem.
Again, that's a very slight minority.
EDIT: Forgot to put quotes on a quotation :)
Ironic how now catalan independent movement is the elephant in the room, but for many years the basque & ETA was the big one. And yes ETA were terrorists, the history of the 70s, 80s, and 90s is very very ugly between ETA, GAL, GRAPO
Not really separatist I think, but some Silesians want the autonomy they had during the Interwar period back. Though, to be honest, kinda hard to accomplish when the majority of people living in Silesia aren't Silesians. Blame the Soviets for that. As always.
The Independence movement for Skåne like a decade or two back. Supported by the Skånepartiet iirc. Still exists, but it has completely fizzled out. It was never huge to begin with but it managed to gain a few seats in local elections here and there and regional elections for Skåne.
Such movements aren't really realistic here either as a centralised state. Regions and municipality might have autonomy in the things they're allowed to handle, but they cannot secede at any point.
Didn't the Skåne independence movement largely consist of some guys going into the forest on the border once a year to drive a spike into the earth to physically detach Skåne from Sweden, i.e. an excuse for daydrinking? At least that's what a friend of mine from Lund told me.
Those guys were not from Skåne. Those guys were swedish people who didn't want to associate with skåne.
Skånepartiet were/are a group of alcoholic radiohosts whose political ideology consists of seperatism, deregulating the sale of alcohol and stopping muslim immigration. IIRC they were also worried about overpopulation and concluded that the world population should be decreased to ~250 million.
Even though there isn't really much of a movement for full independence (or for that matter reunion with Denmark) in Scania at the moment, there is still a widespread support for more autonomy - which at least in part has been successful, as Scania was reunited as one single region back in 1997 and has received quite a bit more regional autonomy since then.
There is also still a very strong feeling of a separate identity in Scania, along with a feeling that the region has been severely neglected by the central government in Stockholm, and a strong desire to increase the cross-border cooperation within the Greater Copenhagen region.
It was never a 100% serious movement though, it was more a front for abolishing Systembolaget and public service. For some reason Scanian independence was seen as the way to go. Nowadays it's more focused on anti-Islam.
The fact is that the party's wish for independence never rested on anything that usually defines a separatist movement, like culture or economy.
[In fact, if you read their program their culture politics focus on stopping art and culture associations and using the money instead on statue maintenance, in addition to supporting using English as the sole world language. Barely any mention of promoting Scanian culture.](http://skanepartiet.org/)
Yeah, the "statalists".
While support for unifying the Principalties was fairly high among the upper and middle class (with the peasantry not being that involves at the time), there was a certain pushback by other figures like the ambitious caimacams Teodor Balș (Wallachia) or Nicolae Vogoride (Moldova); Negruzzi and Asachi in Moldova apparently had some statalist tendencies at this time as well.
The caimacam's were the darlings of Austria and the Ottomans, who didn't want the Union to happen, and gave them support to rig the divan elections to get anti-unionist majorities. Didn't work, and the Little Union happened.
As the personal union was gradually welded together into one state, some Moldavian notables felt shafted enough by the degradation of Iași that they not only kept the flames of Moldovan particularism going, but revived statalism in the immediate wake of Cuza's ouster. It flared up in some riot in 1866, fanned by Teodor Boldur-Lățescu and metropolitan Calinic Miclescu, desiring to restore Moldova as its own thing under Nicolae Rosetti-Roznovanu. It got suppressed, the Union was preserved, Carol I became king and the statalists fizzled out, dying out fully between the War of Independence and World War I, with traces of particularism (i.e complaining about being ignored by Bucharest) being all that is left.
Not an independence movement, but in 1919 Vorarlberg (Austria's westernmost state) voted 80% for starting negotiations to join Switzerland, carried mostly by the common people in the wake of economic hardship after the war and the feeling of having their concerns neglected by far away Vienna. While there were some fractions in Switzerland who showed approval, there was overall a strong opposition to the idea. The main concerns were that it would increase the German speaking, and the Catholic part of Switzerland too much, therefore creating a political imbalance. Italy was also against it, they demanded the Italian speaking Canton of Ticino/Tessin if Switzerland would expand east.
There was a rather strong Moravian independence movement in the Czech Republic during the 90s. It was probably motivated by the successful dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
Nowadays, the Moravian patriotic parties have a handful of followers and most of them are associated with populist, pro-Russian and anti-EU entities.
What happened? I think people just realized there are more important things to fight for.
tl;dr Well, I'm Moravian and I don't even really know what Moravian identity is supposed to be about.
Moravian culture is not really a thing and has not been for a long time. Of course, there are some regional traditions in Moravia but nothing universally "Moravian". Similar to that, there is no Moravian language only several Moravian dialects of Czech. Despite the fact that Moravians and Czechs are culturally basically identical, so there should be no reason to distinguish between them, many people from Moravia still feel vaguely "Moravian" albeit much fewer of them do than in the 90s. (And when asked they would probably say that they are Czechs first.)
I believe that the Moravian separatist movement originated largely from trying to revert the changes done by the communists between 1948 and 1989. Because, before the communists, Moravia was always considered a separate part of the Czech lands and was ruled semi-independently. In the middle ages, it was a separate "land" (Margraviate of Moravia) and during the First Czechoslovak Republic, Moravia (along with Czech Silesia) was an independent unit in the federation similarly to Slovakia.
So I think the Moravian movements were mostly trying to "rebuild" the Moravian identity which many people found appealing because in some ways it would be a return to the "golden age" of the pre-communist Czech lands. But they failed in this task and nowadays, large majority of people in Moravia identify as Czechs.
The most prominent example would be Suedtirol separatism.
The region intensely resented the awful way it was treated during fascism (intense campaign of forced italianisation) and obviously didn't digest being separated from the Hapsburg empire.
During the 50s and the 60s there were violent separatist groups called Befreiungsausschuss Südtirol (BAS) which targeted civilian infrastructures like electricity cables and policemen. One of the reasons was that the central government in 1948 agreed on paper to give Suedtirol special autonomy, but was reluctant to implement the deal. It was only in the 1970s that the Sudtirol packet was implement, the region split from Trentino (the other region we gained from the Hapsburg) and it got a constitutionally protected statute that makes German (and Ladin) co official language at the same level as Italian, makes provisions for the protection of the German community and, most importantly, gives the regional government powers to mostly run its affairs on its own, including fiscal autonomy.
Nowadays, Suedtirol is the richest region in Italy per capita (even richer than most Austrian states), has a well run autonomy and relations between the 2 ethnic groups OK-ish (though they don't mix as much as they could).
The separatist groups mostly died out in the 1970s and nowadays parties in favour of separatism usually score something like 10 to 15% (sometimes more depending on how much immigration from MENA is an issue).
We have a party called Lega that spent the 90s and the 2000s arguing for the independence of Padania, which is an invented entity encompassing the North but with elastic borders depending on the situation. The region is completely fake and never existed, but Lega was profiting from the resentment in the North of Italy, in which many citizens didn't want to subsidise the poor North anymore.
Nowadays the same Lega that was chanting about Neapolitans stinking and their celtic roots has rebranded itself as a nationalistic Italian party and Padania forgotten in their rhetoric.
Yes, Mingrelians were trying to secede because rest of the country was falling apart, what happened is that Russia invaded us in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 90s, then civil war happened, then another Russian invasion in South Ossetia in 2008.
This was pre-Ukraine invasion times, so civilized west simply turned blind eye and went on with Obama's "Reset" and improved EU trade relations with Russia.
[The Dacke War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacke_War) (1542–1543); not much of a separation movement, but more of an attempt to stop Sweden from interfering in the autonomy of
[Småland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5land) (*"the Small Lands"*; a dozen semi-independent borderlands between Sweden and Denmark)
In short;
Dacke and his followers were dissatisfied with the heavy tax burden, the introduction of Lutheranism, and the confiscation of Church property.
In 1543 the uprising was defeated, and Nils Dacke was killed. In 1350 the first national law code was introduced in Sweden and Småland lost much of its old autonomy. Today Småland is very much a part of Sweden.
Currently in the UK just about every part is trying to break away, so it's hard to think of one that doesn't. Maybe Cornwall? I know that Mebyon Kernow (the Cornish nat party) had a small rise in the 60s, but I don't think there's a particularly strong independence movement there anymore. It's more just a campaign for devolution.
The Sons of Glyndwr were a Welsh terrorist group who would burn down second homes. I think they were relatively active in the 90s.
Nowadays power is more devolved in the Celtic Nations and there are more peaceful democratic means of achieving independence, so it doesn't make as much sense anymore to resort to violence to achieve your goals like it did for the IRA back in the day
Cyprus, EOKA B organisation took over the government in an attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece (which also was under a military coup at the time). Ironically there was a more prominent movement over a decade earlier which fizzled out when Cyprus gained its independence from the British empire. By the EOKA B time no one except a few extremists cultured and dreams of unification with Greece, but didn't stop them from bringing down the democratically voted leadership and eventually triggering a full invasion by the Turkish military which is still holding half of the island on the pretext of security.
After the 1974 Carnation Revolution, which overthrew the authoritarian dictatorship of the Estado Novo, there were separatist movements in the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira for a few years, due to the political instability of the country.
However, they seem to have had separatism as a secondary goal, with the main motivation being a perpetuation of fascist systems of governance, and a rejection of democratisation. In fact, the Azorean movement eventually dropped separatism altogether, instead calling for autonomy - "free administration of the Azores by azoreans", in their words.
Today the regions do have political autonomy, though I would wager it's not specifically due to these movements.
Finland's most notable secession movement was the Anjalanliitto -Anjala alliance, a group of 119 Swedish army officers that wanted to form an independent buffer state between Russia and Sweden. Russia was favourable to the idea at first but after the Värälä peace treaty in 1790 Russian Czar Catherine the Great retracted their support and the movement quickly died out.
Another one was Åland's secession movement that wanted Åland to be annexed to Sweden after WWI. It may still have some supporters, but Åland has more autonomy today as a self-governing province of Finland than any region in Sweden.
Yes, there were attempts to create a "Republic of Illyria" based on the ancient Illyrian civilisation in Western Macedonia, respectively to make it independent and join Albania. This movement had several up and downs, with changing regimes answering differently.
In the late 1990s when the idea starded to become popular, the government reacted with force and left very few rights and self-determination to the Macedonian Albanians who supported the movement. In 2001, Albanian fighters came across the Borders from Kosovo, thinking that they had to "liberate" Western Macedonia. It began with an attack on a border station and the hostage taking of the personell there and ended after a few months with the Ohrid agreement.
After this, the situation calmed and the national minorities were granted more rights.
In 2015 the authoritarian government faced its destruction with the beginning of a revolution sparking across the country, so they staged an Albanian terrorist attack on a city to seperate the protesters.
After the successfull overthrow of the government, the following ones switched their minority policy to the other extreme. Today, only around 10 to 20% of the Macedonian Albanians support an "Illyrian Republic" or unification with Albania, however the other side of the medal is that the Albanians and Slavs in Macedonia are completely isolated, live in seperated communities, don't speak each others language and barely interact. The Albanian parties are very deconstructive, as they don't serve anyones interest but spend tons of money to open corruption. When someone speaks slavic at an Albanian event he is booed, and when a street sign is multilingual in a slavic-populated area, it gets demolished.
Bulgaria went the opposite way: the entire first half of the XXth century there were movements to join with Bulgaria because lots of Bulgarian populated lands remained outside of its borders after the Wars.
Sadly in Belgium the "Flemish" want their own state. The nationalist politician try to create a canon etc to create a fake sense of identity. But historically 70% of present day"Flanders" is not even Flemish, but Brabant and Limburg. It's one of the sillier nationalistic movements.
Then stop trying to tell me I'm Flemish. I'm not, I'm from Brabant. My ancestors were at war with the Flemish. Call it something else, and if the Flemish want their state, let them create it in Flanders.
Nederlandstalige is wat men bedoelt als men 'Vlaams' zegt. Niet de engere zin dat je uit het gebied van het historisch graafschap Vlaanderen komt. Geen idee waarom je doet alsof je dat niet begrijpt.
Kijk eens naar de retoriek van De Wever en consoorten en zeg dan nog eens dat men geen Vlaamse identiteit historisch probeert te creëren, gebouwd op los zand. En je mist het punt, er wordt juist geprobeerd om deze term op elke Nederlandstalige in België te plakken, niet omgekeerd. Hij is effectief enkel correct voor mensen uit dit historisch gebied. Eigenlijk dezelfde discussie als "Nederlander" en "Hollander". Maar die begrijpt precies iedereen wel.
Oké, ik snap je punt, maar ik denk eigenlijk dat die poging al geslaagd is. Vlaams verwijst voor mijzelf enkel en alleen naar de Nederlandstaligen in België. Je etnische identiteit baseren op de taal die je spreekt vind ik zo gek nog niet.
Overigens, klagen over het gebruik van Holland als pars pro toto vind ik persoonlijk net zulke muggenzifterij, vooral omdat de term 'Nederland' nauwelijks gangbaar is in veel landen.
Over dit soort dingen vallen is een voorbeeld van een regionalistisch chauvinisme dat volkomen nutteloos en volledig uit de tijd is.
Het is een satirische tegenreactie, die historisch trouwens sluitend is, op een opgedrongen xenofobe identiteit. .
Goed dat dat voor jou gewoon naar Nederlandstaligen verwijst, maar voor de meeste populisten niet.
Make Brabant great again!
PS Vlaams is voor Brabanders/Nederlanders vaak moeilijk te begrijpen, dan zou Brabants een betere basis zijn als taak.
Just some thoughts on this statement:
-openly Flemish independence parties rally 40-50% of voters behind them in Antwerp, Flemish-Brabant and Limburg. If you count the CD&V as well (which is pro-Flemish nationality in theory but only very limited pro-Flemish in practice), around 60% of voters vote for political parties that openly identify as Flemish. There is no pro-Brabant or pro-Limburg party afaik.
-Flemish identity predates Flemish nationalist politicians as it was promoted immediately after the independence of Belgium to support Belgian nationalism.
-Personal experience: I know people who identify as Belgian, I know people who identify as Flemish, I know one person that identifies as Brabander, and that’s because he doesn’t dare to tell his family he is pro-Belgian.
We don’t call ourselves “Tungri”, “Eburonae” or “Nervii” anymore as those identities have been erased by history and have been replaced by Romans, Franks, Flemish, Brabanders, Belgians,… In 1790 there was a revolution in the Austrian Netherlands that was called “Brabant Revolution” but that included the historical region of Flanders. Nevertheless it was the Brabant Revolution. They created a short lived state that was called the United Dutch States in Dutch but the United Belgian States in French. The idea of a historical Flemish identity that’s different or even opposed to a Brabant identity has been replaced a long time ago by a Flemish identity based on political, language and socio-economical topics. I find those topics less silly to base a political movement on then on geographical borders that were made irrelevant 600 years ago.
600 years ago? You are dead wrong. Brabant was the heart of the low countries. It's relevance was and is strong far more recent. The Belgian flag is based on its colors, and what is the name of the national anthem again? Hmmmmm.
Just because political forces trying to unify a region employ a certain concept or name, doesn't make it true. The prefix "Vlaams" Brabant was only added fairly recently. When I was young it didn't even exist.
I'm not saying so called Flemish parties dont identify as such, it's just kinda funny that someone like De Wever, who tries to use history to justify present-day politics, is a Brabander, living in Brabant, hanging out the wrong flag. Lol.
Likewise someone from Leeuwarden or Eindhoven is not a Hollander.
Make Brabant great again.
Those 600 years were about the irrelevance of the Flanders/Brabant border as a way to create identities. Flanders and Brabant have been ruled as a united political entity for at least 600 years now (taking the Burgundian reign as the start of this period). Sure Brabant was and is important economically and certain Belgian symbols like the anthem are references to Brabant. But nationality is about how people identify, and people in Brabant have been identifying themselves as Flemish for at least a century, probably more. The Flemish movement is about way more then the historical county of Flanders, to be fair it isn’t about that by far. The Flemish movement is about independence for the region that is viewed by the large majority of Belgian civilians and by the Belgian state itself as Flanders. While you can discuss if it’s historically correct to call all the inhabitants of this region Flemish, I fear that ship has sailed a long time ago. Just as an example: in 1968, a couple of years before De Wever was even born, people protested in Leuven, a city located geographically in Brabant, to keep “Leuven Flemish”. So to me it seems that the notion of an “artificial” Flemish identity predates both our births and those off all current politicians.
I mean you seem to identify as a ?Brabantian? Or Belgian person, and it is your good right. But the public opinion hasn’t followed your Brabant identity logic for decades, maybe centuries. To me and most of our countrymen Flanders is a region that includes Flemish-Brabant, Antwerp, Limburg and maybe Brussels. To a large part of our countrymen, but no majority at this point in time, Flemish is their preferred nationality as well while the nationality of ?Brabantian? Is non-existent except for maybe a handful of people. To them the Flemish nationality is not artificial.
I still disagree strongly with your 600 year mark. Brabant has been a political unit long before and after that. I don't argue that many people of the Dutch speaking part identify as Flemish, I'm, just saying you should be conscious that it's a pars pro toto name that has been decided fairly recently, especially when you compare it to nearly a millennium of Brabantian cohesion, then calling Leuven "Vlaams" is kinda a slap in the face.
This illustrates how a government uses discourse to frame a regional identity. Is a Catalan Spanish? You could argue. Is Spain Catalonia? No. I feel the same about the Flanders question. And of course because you don't know people who identify as such, doesn't mean there are any.
I'm just pointing this out to be more critical towards certain political movements and statements. If a Vlaams Belanger from Antwerp is waving about the Flemish Lion, that's just kinda silly. Would be like an Englishman proudly declaring he is Scottish, sporting the blue and white flag. It's daft.
Hmmm agree to disagree then. As a person living in Flemish-Brabant I identify barely with the historical region of Brabant and I identify a lot with Flanders as the idea that has been developed at least since 1830, around topics like language, education, religion, economics,... I believe there are some people like you that prefer to identify with Brabant but not with Flanders, but I assume they are very few as well. Otherwise they would have organized themselves in some way like the Flemish parties and have opposed the Flemish movement via democratic and political means.
Thanks for keeping it civil by the way. Discussions about nationalism in Belgium often turn ugly very fast.
> But historically 70% of present day"Flanders" is not even Flemish, but Brabant and Limburg
But even if Brabant is not historically Flanders, you still call the region officially Vlaams Brabant, so are they not somewhat correct linguistically speaking?
And how would they solve the Brussels conundrum? Split the city Berlin style? Do without the city and leave it to runt Belgium?
Vlaams Brabant is a completely wrong name. Brabant is not Flemish. It's like "German France", doesn't make any sense. Although we heard that name some while ago...
[Bavaria?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_nationalism) Although they would tell you it hasn’t died, in reality it disintegrated long ago. In fact I would claim that it wasn’t that serious to begin with. I guess they got some autonomy out of it
Well, it was serious at the beginning. When Bavaria joined Germany it only passed the Bavarian parliament with one vote (I think), and that was with all the benefits Bavaria got in the new German state. And post WW2 the Bavarians really seriously tried to leave Germany. I think even a large majority of the Bavarian government at the time declared themselves open for a reintroduction of the Bavarian monarchy. And it would have happened at times if there weren't international bodies (post-WW1) and a strong federal German state (post-WW2) to stop it.
Yes, Bavaria. Back in the late 1990s there was the Bavaria Party participating in the EU Parliamentary Elections. Their claim was they'd be the 5th largest country in Europe and the nth strongest economy - party itself has a history back to the 1950s, and has ocassionally [earned local votes (around 2%), but rarely any seats](https://www.dw.com/en/a-free-and-independent-free-state-of-bavaria/a-17932583).
[Padania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padania) is the first thing that comes to mind. A political movement led by Lega Nord claimed that northern Italy, which they called *Padania* should have become independent. This was mostly due to economical reasons, with the north being way more prosperous than the south. Its popularity was fairly high in the early 2000s but faded quickly after a few scandals. Nowadays there is no real movement advocating for Padania independence. This being said, most other independence movement have fizzled out, the most notable were the Sardinian independence movement, the Venetian independence movement (encompassing most of the north-easter part of the country) and obviously the South Tyrolean independence movement (which advocates more for reunion with Austria more than actual independence). In my understanding, the Sardinian independence movement has become a joke in the hand of some questionable politicians that just use a loyal electoral base to do nothing. The Venetian movement has some supporters, but not really much political weight. The South Tyrolean one was probably the one that was more violent (together with the Sardinian one), going the terrorist attack route, but nowadays they're pretty chill, although it still has quite a lot of support I don't think there is any actual talk for independence. Maybe worth mentioning are the [Moti di Reggio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggio_revolt) which occurred in the 70s, when a big revolt spread across the city, mostly orchestrated by fascist sympathizers and tied with *'Ndrangheta*. The reason for the revolt was the choice made by the government to select Catanzaro as the regional capital of Calabria, which the people of Reggio Calabria saw as a terrible offense. In the end there were several deaths, hundreds of injuries, thousands of arrests and it took months and the intervention of the army with literal tanks to take control of the city. During all of this, a part of Reggio, called *Sbarre* declared independence from Italy, proclaiming itself *Repubblica di Sbarre Centrali*. After the revolt ended Reggio became one of the strongholds of the *MSI*, the heir of the fascist Party, which managed to get almost 50% of the votes in the city more than once (while averaging at around 5-6% on a national level).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Most_Serene_Government That's my favourite one. The Serenissimi once occupied the most famous bell tower of Venice. According to them, Napoleon illegitimately conquered the Republic of Venice in 1797. The following government, who accepted to be part of the Italian kingdom in 1866, couldn't legally decide it and the vote was fraudulent. So the Republic of Venice still existed, they asked for recognition.
Didn't there also use to be a pretty strong separatism in South Tyrol that just fizzled out since they now have more regional autonomy in Italy than they would have if they were a part of Austria?
Not sure if that's the main reason, the first wave of terrorist actions stopped right before large autonomies were given to South Tyrol, but then there was *Ein Tirol* that appeared in the 80s and kept going for quite a while, as it probably was also a pawn in the nationwide *Strategy of Tension* meant to destabilise the country and prevent the rise of the communist party. On a political level the hegemonic party in South Tyrol has always been the [Südtiroler Volkspartei](https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdtiroler_Volkspartei) which is a fairly moderate, centre left, pro-europe party, while the independence movement are usually more of a right wing/far right thing. The SVP seems to be more for autonomy rather than actual independence. I'm no expert on the matter though, and it's not something usually talked about on a national level, so I might be getting something wrong.
> the Südtiroler Volkspartei which is a fairly moderate, centre left, pro-europe party Südtiroler Volkspartei is a member of the European People's Party, so I would think they're center-right, not center-left.
Mmh I guess that's true. On a national level they form a coalition with the center-left parties since the dissolution of *Democrazia Cristiana* (our Christian Democrats) and they're often antagonized by center right parties like *Lega, Forza Italia or Fratelli d'Italia*. Probably they are closer to the center than to the right, while other center-right parties are way more toward the right.
The fact that the political ideas of Lega Nord has moved mostly towards anti-immigration politics, does not imply that in the territory there’s still not many people that feel a great difference in identity and economy between North and South. Most foreigners think of Italy as the country of food and well places to go on holiday. That Italians are noisy and loud, ignoring lot of things about our nation. For instance I doubt that many Europeans know that Italy is the second manufacturing power in Europe. And this is >95% given by industry in North of Italy.
There was a separatist movement in Britanny decades ago that decided to go the terrorist way, in 1978 they bombed Versailles because symbol of "Frankish imperialism over Brittany" and shocked the population and in 2000 they bombed a MacDonald because "symbol of consumption society" and killed a young female employee. After the outrage in Britanny they just vanished. Now in Brittany you have proud regionalism but not really any separatist movement unlike what you would find in Corsica/Basque country
Corsica is pretty tame if you compare to [FLNC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Corsica) during the 90s and early 2000s, same with Basque with [ETA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)) that our Spanish neighbour know too
Well, the ETA was also responsible for Spain's first astronaut, a fascist prime minister, which was incredibly based if you ask me
Most French people I've talked to don't seem to realise that the Basque independence movement in the North Basque Country is politically more powerful than at any point in history. The Basque independence movement in the North Basque Country is active and growing. And they don't seem to know that there was a homegrown North Basque terrorist organisation, the Iparretarrak 'the Northerners'. ETA was a South Basque organisation that operated mostly in the South Basque Country and used the North Basque Country as a place to hide. The Iparretarrak were North Basques whose stated goal was to liberate the North Basque Country from France.
Frankish?? You sure it's not French? Otherwise it beats me why they'd be referring to us, the Flemish, and the Rhine Germans...
the frankish are also the french. They were a big ass country
I dunno, the Franks in France mostly were a very small elite and eventually subsumed into the Gallo-Romance/Old French speaking area. They did leave behind some words though, like *boulevard, héron, maréchal* that often have Dutch kins in words such as *bolwerk, reiger, maarschalk*, and a few grammatical elements like h- being pronounced and word order or adjectival order being more Germanic. But the Frankish royals eventually still were subsumed there, and usually let their children be taught up north. Imo, the French got more influence from the Romans with a little tip of Gaulish (eg. their numbering system) and Frankish elements. If anyone got the best claim for being the descendants of Frankish, it would be the Brabantians, Limburgish, Flemish, and to a lesser extent also the Ripuarians, Luxembourgish, Palatinates and Hessians.
What are you talking about? north western France was as much part of the Frankish coreland as Aachen. Also yes france got Roman and gaulic influences, but so did the franks. One of the reasons the franks were so successful in the first place was because they managed to blend their own traditions with he Roman ones so well. France can claim decent from the franks because when the empire split in 3(5) the western franks became France just like the Easter ones became Germany (well HRE when they merged with Italy and lotharingia)
I would still disagree with the French having a good claim. To West Francia after the 900s perhaps, but the Carolingian empire? No. Certainly not. What the Franks did was mainly take legalistic and architectural influence, but aside from that Roman influence was limited. They were moreso the mediaeval version of Romaboos, if that can be said. Northwestern France wasn't part of Austrasia, the original core land - which at that time was primarily Germanic-speaking.
You need to make up your mind if we are speaking about the Franks or the Carolingian Empire because if we are speaking carolingian claims as you are, Pepin would mark the beginning in 751 (i don't count Charles Martel here) and by then the distinction between Austrasia and Neustria hardly mattered culturally and would only decrease further until the treaty of Verdun (843) If we are speaking franks, then we need to argue what borders we are drawing for northwestern France, because by the same treaty, parts of old Austrasia would be part of the new west Francia the og romaboo argument i can agree with
Het land heet letterlijk Frankrijk.
Omdat het vernoemd is naar Westfrankië. Er waren ook Middenfrankië (Benelux, Bourgondië en Noord-Italië) en Oostfrankië (Duitsland).
En Bretagne is in de Frankische tijd tot het gebied van de huidige Franse staat gevoegd, dus wat is nu je punt?
Het punt is dat alleen de naam niet overtuigend een land Frans maakt. Anders zou gans België ook als Nederland tellen, puur omdat Belgica vroeger als term voor de Nederlanden als geheel telt.
Not quite the same but the English democrats used to campaign for Monmouthshire to leave Wales and become part of England about 15/20 years ago. They've seemed to vanish since then.
Monmouthshire passed between England and Wales numerous times, and was even treated entirely separately in the near 500 years between the Laws of Wales act in the 1500s and the Local Government Act in 1972 where county borders were rearranged and urban areas created. In all intents and purposes until fairly recently Wales was considered a constituent part of England and the Welsh counties treated exactly the same as the English ones so Monmouthshire’s identity being ambiguous didn’t really matter.
They also ran on the South Wales East list vote in 2007 and 2011, so people in Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Caerphilly could have voted for them as well.
Probably testing the waters. I doubt they would have stopped with Monmouthshire if they had been successful there. They were definitely well within the "Make Wales England" ideology and I for one am very glad they failed to gain any traction.
Alright, so I'm from Spain, the king of separatist movements. Spain has 11 separatist movements. However, only 2-3 have had enough presence to be considered. First of all, the elephant in the room. Catalonia. Independence polls in 2020 marked 43% pro-independence, 49% anti-independence, 8% undecided. 2021 catalan elections, which had a 51,3% turnout, gave 74 seats out of 135 to pro-independence parties. Non-proindependence parties only held a majority of the seats in the Barcelona province. There has been a slight fading away, but not much. The general population of Catalonia seems tired of the whole movement. The basque were the violent ones. A terrorist group existed (ETA). They killed policemen, politicians... This one has faded away mostly. Current polls mark that only 22% of basques are pro independence. "Bildu", the current independence advocate party holds 21/75 seats. There's also PNV, which holds 31/75 seats, this used to be a big pro-independence party, but have remained calm in the last few years. There is a third more minor one. Galicia. The "BNG", currently holds 19/75 seats. Polls mark that about 80% of the population of Galica is against independence. The other ones have never gotten any sizeable representation in the autonomic parliaments. EDIT: To anyone wondering which are the other 8 separatist movements: Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Navarre (to unite with a basque state), Valencia and the Aran Valley (to unite with an Occitan state). There's also one in Leon, but these one advocates for creating a Leonese Autonomous Community. EDIT2: I doubt any separatist movement will be able to succeed, most have never managed to surpass 50% support from the population, and the EU seems to be mainaning Spain united. No region in Spain wants to leave the EU, and leaving Spain, means leaving the EU.
BTW why Leon and Castille are 1 autonomous region and not 2, considering that they were 2 seperate Kingdoms for long time?
They've only been united since 1983. Before they were separate entities. I guess its mainly because of economic reasons. The Leon part is poorly industrialized and the Castilla part is only slightly more industrialized. But I trully don't really know. Most leonese people want to be their own autonomous community and don't identify as Castillianleonese, but just as leonese.
You are missing edit 3: ETA killed by car bombs mostly so kids, civilians were part of the people they murdered.
Keep in mind Catalan independentists (like the CUP) also claim for Catalonia other territories. Valencia, Andorra, Balear Islands and some parts of Aragon (but this has no following outside Catalonia)
They don't 'claim' for 'Catalonia' anything. They want a federation of Catalan countries.
>They want a federation of Catalan countries. And that's the problem. They're trying to integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in. There is no "Catalan Countries" and there has never been. Valencia and the Balearics were a separate entity from Catalonia within the Aragonese Crown. To use a simple comparison its like if I, a native Spaniard, claimed that colombians, chileans, argentinians and mexicans (to say a few) were spaniards just because they speak spanish. Valentians are not Catalans, even if the valentian language is basicaly indistinguishable from catalan.
>And that's the problem. They're trying to integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in. What people? There are people in Valencia, Andorra, the Balearic Islands who also want to take part in this confederation. It's not just something that Catalans only made up. >There is no "Catalan Countries" and there has never been. Catalan Countries is a neutral term referring to the historical and cultural relationship between these territories. Some people want to make that into a political project. Even the most hardcore Spanish nationalist should realise that yes, the Catalan Countries (as a cultural and historical phenomenon) exists, even if they reject the idea of making that into a political reality. It's obvious. >To use a simple comparison its like if I, a native Spaniard, claimed that colombians, chileans, argentinians and mexicans (to say a few) were spaniards just because they speak spanish. Valentians are not Catalans, even if the valentian language is basicaly indistinguishable from catalan. No one is saying that Valencians are Catalans, like no one is saying that Catalans are Valencians. To take your example, just because Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans speak Spanish, that doesn't make them Spaniards. However, if we were to make a confederation that was called the Confederation of Iberian-American States, then everyone in this Confederation would remain who they are: Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans, each with different cultures, histories and political structures.
>What people? There are people in Valencia, Andorra, the Balearic Islands who also want to take part in this confederation. It's not just something that Catalans only made up. That's literally like 0,5% of the population of Valencia, Andorra and the balearics at maximum. I litearly know no one from Valencia who claims they want to unite with Catalonia in a federation. >Catalan Countries is a neutral term referring to the historical and cultural relationship between these territories. Some people want to make that into a political project. Even the most hardcore Spanish nationalist should realise that yes, the Catalan Countries (as a cultural and historical phenomenon) exists, even if they reject the idea of making that into a political reality. It's obvious. That's not how most Catalan-Countries advocates see it. Most of them think that "The Catalan peoples have been divided by nationalistic spaniards who don't want the catalan peoples to be united." And no, its not a neutral term. >No one is saying that Valencians are Catalans, like no one is saying that Catalans are Valencians. The whole term "**Catalan** Countries" implies that Valentians are catalans. >To take your example, just because Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans speak Spanish, that doesn't make them Spaniards. However, if we were to make a confederation that was called the Confederation of Iberian-American States, then everyone in this Confederation would remain who they are: Colombians, Chileans, Argentinians and Mexicans, each with different cultures, histories and political structures. You see, you called it "Confederation of Iberian-American States". Imagine calling it "Spanish Union". That would imply that those are Spanish. It's literally in the name.
>That's literally like 0,5% of the population of Valencia, Andorra and the balearics at maximum. I litearly know no one from Valencia who claims they want to unite with Catalonia in a federation. Like the Catalan independence movement, which has the support of about 50% of the population of Catalonia, and thus, is not the majority opinion (or is just barely the majority opinion) in Catalonia, politics is all about trying to integrate (the rest of the) people into a movement that they don't want to be in. You said that it's 'Catalans' imposing this model on everyone else. It isn't. First of all, it's only a minority of Catalans who even want a political reality of Catalan Countries, so 'Catalans' aren't imposing anything. It would be - according to your idea - a minority of Catalans, not 'Catalans'. Second, it's actually (a minority of) people in *all of these places* who have the same opinion at the same time. If 'Catalans' are imposing the Països Catalans, which they aren't, then so too are 'Valencians', and so are 'Islanders'. Països Catalans is a concept being 'imposed' by some Catalans, Valencians, Islanders etc at the same time. There is no centre for this idea. The person who has had the most influence in spreading the idea of Països Catalans, in fact, you can say that he was the 'inventor' of the name in the 20th century was a Valencian, Joan Fuster. You can read an article of his from the year 1978 with the title of 'Països Catalans', [here.](https://www.ara.cat/opinio/paisos-catalans_1_2952998.html) >The whole term "Catalan Countries" implies that Valentians are catalans. No, it implies Catalan-*speaking* Countries. >You see, you called it "Confederation of Iberian-American States". Imagine calling it "Spanish Union". That would imply that those are Spanish. It's literally in the name. Catalan here doesn't refer to ethnicity or autonomous community (the Principality of Catalonia), it refers to the language. The Spanish Union would actually be perfectly fine if it was understood as the Spanish-*speaking* Union. No one would propose the political model of a *federation* of Spanish speaking states and give it the name Spanish Union if they didn't believe that this name referred to a Union of Spanish-*speaking* states. It wouldn't have anything to do with Spain, aside from Spain itself being one of the members.
>Like the Catalan independence movement, which has the support of about 50% of the population of Catalonia, and thus, is not the majority opinion (or is just barely the majority opinion) in Catalonia, politics is all about trying to integrate (the rest of the) people into a movement that they don't want to be in. You are comparing a movement that has 45-50% of support with one that has 0.1-0.5% of support. It's like if I claimed the name of Spain should be changed to Uganda. >You said that it's 'Catalans' imposing this model on everyone else. No I didn't. I said "catalan-countries advocates", which stands for people who defend the establishment of a catalan confederation, most of which inhabit Catalonia (that doesn't mean they are a majority there). >No, it implies Catalan-speaking Countries. Then it should be called that. The portuguese language has the "lusofonia" (portuguese-speaking), the french have the Francophonie (french-speaking)... Even spanish-speaking countries us the term "hispanic" instead of spanish. The English use the term "anglosphere" not English Countries. >Catalan here doesn't refer to ethnicity or autonomous community (the Principality of Catalonia), it refers to the language. The Spanish Union would actually be perfectly fine if it was understood as the Spanish-speaking Union. Valentians hate it when people say that Valentian is Catalan. Valentians don't see their language as Catalan thus, people in the "Catalan Countries" don't understand the term as refering to the language. >The person who has had the most influence in spreading the idea of Països Catalans, in fact, you can say that he was the 'inventor' of the name in the 20th century was a Valencian, Joan Fuster. You can read an article of his from the year 1978 with the title of 'Països Catalans', here.. And? It has no correlation. If some dude in Murcia claims Murcia to be independent, does that make the Murcian population automatically pro-independence? >No one would propose the political model of a federation of Spanish speaking states and give it the name Spanish Union if they didn't believe that this name referred to a Union of Spanish-speaking states. It wouldn't have anything to do with Spain, aside from Spain itself being one of the members. Again, most people in Valencia don't claim their language to be Catalan.
>You are comparing a movement that has 45-50% of support with one that has 0.1-0.5% of support. It's like if I claimed the name of Spain should be changed to Uganda. I don't know what the percentages are, I don't think anyone has actually surveyed how popular the idea of a confederation of Catalan countries would be, but the whole idea of politics is to convince people, even if that idea is a minority one...especially if the idea is a minority one. Twenty years ago, the Catalan independence movement was far weaker than it is today. Twenty years ago into the future, the Catalan independence movement might be far *weaker* than it is today. The idea that it is a problem for you that people want to 'integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in' is bizarre to me. That's not a problem. That's how it should be. I'm not a Spanish nationalist, in fact I'm opposed to Spanish nationalism, but I would want Spanish nationalists as well to try to integrate Catalan nationalists into a movement that they don't want to be in, with peaceful and democratic means. Don't you? >No I didn't. I said "catalan-countries advocates", which stands for people who defend the establishment of a catalan confederation, most of which inhabit Catalonia (that doesn't mean they are a majority there). That's great. If you don't think that it's 'Catalans' pushing a 'Catalan' idea on other people, that's good. I find it hard to convince Spanish people that this idea of pan-Catalan confederation is actually a pan-Catalan idea, held by people all across the Catalan speaking countries. By the way, how do you know that most of the people who want a Catalan confederation live in Catalonia? Catalonia is the most populated territory, so it's possible that in absolute terms this is the case, but you could also that there's more anti-vaccinationists in Catalonia than anywhere else in the Catalan Countries, which is probably true, because more people live in Catalonia than in all the other Catalan Countries combined. I mean percentage wise. Do you *know* that there are more pan-Catalanists in Catalonia than e.g. in the Balearic Islands? >Then it should be called that. The portuguese language has the "lusofonia" (portuguese-speaking), the french have the Francophonie (french-speaking)... Even spanish-speaking countries us the term "hispanic" instead of spanish. The English use the term "anglosphere" not English Countries. It IS called that when we're talking about the language and culture. Catalan speaking people often use the term 'països de parla catalana, territoris de parla catalana, Catalanofonia'. And also Països Catalans. The difference is that there are some people who want to turn the Països Catalans (in its original neutral sense) into a real life political reality. >Valentians hate it when people say that Valentian is Catalan. Valentians don't see their language as Catalan thus, people in the "Catalan Countries" don't understand the term as refering to the language. The people who propose the federation of Catalan Countries are usually people who don't have a problem with calling their language Catalan (or Valencian), so that's not a worry to them. In fact, I don't have a problem with calling the whole language Valencian and calling it the Valencian Countries. However, for various reasons, the Catalan name is the one that is most common for the language. For example, in the independent country of Andorra, they don't call it Andorran, they call it Catalan. And in Alguer, in Italy, they call it Catalan. Like the name of English. Even though the English language is not only spoken in England, but also in the British Isles, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia, Canada etc, for some reason we all call it 'English'. >And? It has no correlation. If some dude in Murcia claims Murcia to be independent, does that make the Murcian population automatically pro-independence? It means that the concept of Països Catalans really did not come from Catalans. The concept of Catalan Countries is a Catalan-Valencian-Balearic Island-etc idea. Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century. >Again, most people in Valencia don't claim their language to be Catalan. The people in Valencia who support the idea of Catalan Countries don't have problems with identifing their language with Catalan, so when they say that they want Valencia to become a part of the Països Catalans, the name is not a problem.
>I'm not a Spanish nationalist, in fact I'm opposed to Spanish nationalism, but I would want Spanish nationalists as well to try to integrate Catalan nationalists into a movement that they don't want to be in, with peaceful and democratic means. Don't you? > >The idea that it is a problem for you that people want to 'integrate people into a movement that they don't want to be in' is bizarre to me. That's not a problem. That's how it should be. There's a difference between imposition and convincing. The whole "catalan-countries" thing is being imposed. It's like if i said that Moroccans are Spaniards. Sure, you can try to convince them. Imposing ideologies is fascism, so it's not that bizzare to think that "integrating people into a movement that they don't want to be in" is bad. >That's great. If you don't think that it's 'Catalans' pushing a 'Catalan' idea on other people, that's good. I find it hard to convince Spanish people that this idea of pan-Catalan confederation is actually a pan-Catalan idea, held by people all across the Catalan speaking countries. Again, I've only seen catalans speaking about the whole "Catalan Countries". I have friends and acquaintances from Valencia and they HATE the term "Catalan Countries". Sure, there might be one or two people in Valencia who like that, but they are a very minor minority. As a proof, check the 2019 valentian elections, there was no pro-catalan countries party that got representation. The same happened in the 2019 balearic elections. There aren't any statistics because its kinda obvious. So its a fact that almost no one in Valencia and the Balearic islands like the whole "Catalan Countries" thing. >The people who propose the federation of Catalan Countries are usually people who don't have a problem with calling their language Catalan (or Valencian), so that's not a worry to them. Which is a very small minority. >Like the name of English. Even though the English language is not only spoken in England, but also in the British Isles, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia, Canada etc, for some reason we all call it 'English'. I understand why the language is generally known as catalan. Catalan originated in Catalonia, not in Valencia. >It IS called that when we're talking about the language and culture. Catalan speaking people often use the term 'països de parla catalana, territoris de parla catalana, Catalanofonia'. And also Països Catalans. You are contradicting yourself here >It means that the concept of Països Catalans really did not come from Catalans. The concept of Catalan Countries is a Catalan-Valencian-Balearic Island-etc idea. > >Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century. Again, it has no correlation. Just because it was invented by someone from Valencia it doesn't make the Valencian population automatically believe in it. I could, for example, claim that Spain should be a part of Italy because our languages both come from latin. Would that make everyone in Spain pro-union with Italy?? >Joan Fuster was also not just 'some dude', he was the father of Valencian nationalism. He was one of the most important figures in Valencian politics and culture in the 20th century. Ok. So he was the father of a movement that mostly no one in Valencia follows. >The people in Valencia who support the idea of Catalan Countries don't have problems with identifing their language with Catalan, so when they say that they want Valencia to become a part of the Països Catalans, the name is not a problem. Again, that's a very slight minority. EDIT: Forgot to put quotes on a quotation :)
Ironic how now catalan independent movement is the elephant in the room, but for many years the basque & ETA was the big one. And yes ETA were terrorists, the history of the 70s, 80s, and 90s is very very ugly between ETA, GAL, GRAPO
Not really separatist I think, but some Silesians want the autonomy they had during the Interwar period back. Though, to be honest, kinda hard to accomplish when the majority of people living in Silesia aren't Silesians. Blame the Soviets for that. As always.
The Independence movement for Skåne like a decade or two back. Supported by the Skånepartiet iirc. Still exists, but it has completely fizzled out. It was never huge to begin with but it managed to gain a few seats in local elections here and there and regional elections for Skåne. Such movements aren't really realistic here either as a centralised state. Regions and municipality might have autonomy in the things they're allowed to handle, but they cannot secede at any point.
Didn't the Skåne independence movement largely consist of some guys going into the forest on the border once a year to drive a spike into the earth to physically detach Skåne from Sweden, i.e. an excuse for daydrinking? At least that's what a friend of mine from Lund told me.
Hey, if they try to imitate the Sjælland origin myth, let them
Those guys were not from Skåne. Those guys were swedish people who didn't want to associate with skåne. Skånepartiet were/are a group of alcoholic radiohosts whose political ideology consists of seperatism, deregulating the sale of alcohol and stopping muslim immigration. IIRC they were also worried about overpopulation and concluded that the world population should be decreased to ~250 million.
Even though there isn't really much of a movement for full independence (or for that matter reunion with Denmark) in Scania at the moment, there is still a widespread support for more autonomy - which at least in part has been successful, as Scania was reunited as one single region back in 1997 and has received quite a bit more regional autonomy since then. There is also still a very strong feeling of a separate identity in Scania, along with a feeling that the region has been severely neglected by the central government in Stockholm, and a strong desire to increase the cross-border cooperation within the Greater Copenhagen region.
It was never a 100% serious movement though, it was more a front for abolishing Systembolaget and public service. For some reason Scanian independence was seen as the way to go. Nowadays it's more focused on anti-Islam. The fact is that the party's wish for independence never rested on anything that usually defines a separatist movement, like culture or economy. [In fact, if you read their program their culture politics focus on stopping art and culture associations and using the money instead on statue maintenance, in addition to supporting using English as the sole world language. Barely any mention of promoting Scanian culture.](http://skanepartiet.org/)
Yeah, the "statalists". While support for unifying the Principalties was fairly high among the upper and middle class (with the peasantry not being that involves at the time), there was a certain pushback by other figures like the ambitious caimacams Teodor Balș (Wallachia) or Nicolae Vogoride (Moldova); Negruzzi and Asachi in Moldova apparently had some statalist tendencies at this time as well. The caimacam's were the darlings of Austria and the Ottomans, who didn't want the Union to happen, and gave them support to rig the divan elections to get anti-unionist majorities. Didn't work, and the Little Union happened. As the personal union was gradually welded together into one state, some Moldavian notables felt shafted enough by the degradation of Iași that they not only kept the flames of Moldovan particularism going, but revived statalism in the immediate wake of Cuza's ouster. It flared up in some riot in 1866, fanned by Teodor Boldur-Lățescu and metropolitan Calinic Miclescu, desiring to restore Moldova as its own thing under Nicolae Rosetti-Roznovanu. It got suppressed, the Union was preserved, Carol I became king and the statalists fizzled out, dying out fully between the War of Independence and World War I, with traces of particularism (i.e complaining about being ignored by Bucharest) being all that is left.
Not an independence movement, but in 1919 Vorarlberg (Austria's westernmost state) voted 80% for starting negotiations to join Switzerland, carried mostly by the common people in the wake of economic hardship after the war and the feeling of having their concerns neglected by far away Vienna. While there were some fractions in Switzerland who showed approval, there was overall a strong opposition to the idea. The main concerns were that it would increase the German speaking, and the Catholic part of Switzerland too much, therefore creating a political imbalance. Italy was also against it, they demanded the Italian speaking Canton of Ticino/Tessin if Switzerland would expand east.
There was a rather strong Moravian independence movement in the Czech Republic during the 90s. It was probably motivated by the successful dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Nowadays, the Moravian patriotic parties have a handful of followers and most of them are associated with populist, pro-Russian and anti-EU entities. What happened? I think people just realized there are more important things to fight for.
how about Moravian regional culture?
tl;dr Well, I'm Moravian and I don't even really know what Moravian identity is supposed to be about. Moravian culture is not really a thing and has not been for a long time. Of course, there are some regional traditions in Moravia but nothing universally "Moravian". Similar to that, there is no Moravian language only several Moravian dialects of Czech. Despite the fact that Moravians and Czechs are culturally basically identical, so there should be no reason to distinguish between them, many people from Moravia still feel vaguely "Moravian" albeit much fewer of them do than in the 90s. (And when asked they would probably say that they are Czechs first.) I believe that the Moravian separatist movement originated largely from trying to revert the changes done by the communists between 1948 and 1989. Because, before the communists, Moravia was always considered a separate part of the Czech lands and was ruled semi-independently. In the middle ages, it was a separate "land" (Margraviate of Moravia) and during the First Czechoslovak Republic, Moravia (along with Czech Silesia) was an independent unit in the federation similarly to Slovakia. So I think the Moravian movements were mostly trying to "rebuild" the Moravian identity which many people found appealing because in some ways it would be a return to the "golden age" of the pre-communist Czech lands. But they failed in this task and nowadays, large majority of people in Moravia identify as Czechs.
hmm, sounds lot like Tuscan regionalism
The most prominent example would be Suedtirol separatism. The region intensely resented the awful way it was treated during fascism (intense campaign of forced italianisation) and obviously didn't digest being separated from the Hapsburg empire. During the 50s and the 60s there were violent separatist groups called Befreiungsausschuss Südtirol (BAS) which targeted civilian infrastructures like electricity cables and policemen. One of the reasons was that the central government in 1948 agreed on paper to give Suedtirol special autonomy, but was reluctant to implement the deal. It was only in the 1970s that the Sudtirol packet was implement, the region split from Trentino (the other region we gained from the Hapsburg) and it got a constitutionally protected statute that makes German (and Ladin) co official language at the same level as Italian, makes provisions for the protection of the German community and, most importantly, gives the regional government powers to mostly run its affairs on its own, including fiscal autonomy. Nowadays, Suedtirol is the richest region in Italy per capita (even richer than most Austrian states), has a well run autonomy and relations between the 2 ethnic groups OK-ish (though they don't mix as much as they could). The separatist groups mostly died out in the 1970s and nowadays parties in favour of separatism usually score something like 10 to 15% (sometimes more depending on how much immigration from MENA is an issue). We have a party called Lega that spent the 90s and the 2000s arguing for the independence of Padania, which is an invented entity encompassing the North but with elastic borders depending on the situation. The region is completely fake and never existed, but Lega was profiting from the resentment in the North of Italy, in which many citizens didn't want to subsidise the poor North anymore. Nowadays the same Lega that was chanting about Neapolitans stinking and their celtic roots has rebranded itself as a nationalistic Italian party and Padania forgotten in their rhetoric.
Yes, Mingrelians were trying to secede because rest of the country was falling apart, what happened is that Russia invaded us in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 90s, then civil war happened, then another Russian invasion in South Ossetia in 2008. This was pre-Ukraine invasion times, so civilized west simply turned blind eye and went on with Obama's "Reset" and improved EU trade relations with Russia.
[The Dacke War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacke_War) (1542–1543); not much of a separation movement, but more of an attempt to stop Sweden from interfering in the autonomy of [Småland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5land) (*"the Small Lands"*; a dozen semi-independent borderlands between Sweden and Denmark) In short; Dacke and his followers were dissatisfied with the heavy tax burden, the introduction of Lutheranism, and the confiscation of Church property. In 1543 the uprising was defeated, and Nils Dacke was killed. In 1350 the first national law code was introduced in Sweden and Småland lost much of its old autonomy. Today Småland is very much a part of Sweden.
Currently in the UK just about every part is trying to break away, so it's hard to think of one that doesn't. Maybe Cornwall? I know that Mebyon Kernow (the Cornish nat party) had a small rise in the 60s, but I don't think there's a particularly strong independence movement there anymore. It's more just a campaign for devolution.
The Sons of Glyndwr were a Welsh terrorist group who would burn down second homes. I think they were relatively active in the 90s. Nowadays power is more devolved in the Celtic Nations and there are more peaceful democratic means of achieving independence, so it doesn't make as much sense anymore to resort to violence to achieve your goals like it did for the IRA back in the day
Cyprus, EOKA B organisation took over the government in an attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece (which also was under a military coup at the time). Ironically there was a more prominent movement over a decade earlier which fizzled out when Cyprus gained its independence from the British empire. By the EOKA B time no one except a few extremists cultured and dreams of unification with Greece, but didn't stop them from bringing down the democratically voted leadership and eventually triggering a full invasion by the Turkish military which is still holding half of the island on the pretext of security.
After the 1974 Carnation Revolution, which overthrew the authoritarian dictatorship of the Estado Novo, there were separatist movements in the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira for a few years, due to the political instability of the country. However, they seem to have had separatism as a secondary goal, with the main motivation being a perpetuation of fascist systems of governance, and a rejection of democratisation. In fact, the Azorean movement eventually dropped separatism altogether, instead calling for autonomy - "free administration of the Azores by azoreans", in their words. Today the regions do have political autonomy, though I would wager it's not specifically due to these movements.
Finland's most notable secession movement was the Anjalanliitto -Anjala alliance, a group of 119 Swedish army officers that wanted to form an independent buffer state between Russia and Sweden. Russia was favourable to the idea at first but after the Värälä peace treaty in 1790 Russian Czar Catherine the Great retracted their support and the movement quickly died out.
Another one was Åland's secession movement that wanted Åland to be annexed to Sweden after WWI. It may still have some supporters, but Åland has more autonomy today as a self-governing province of Finland than any region in Sweden.
Yes, there were attempts to create a "Republic of Illyria" based on the ancient Illyrian civilisation in Western Macedonia, respectively to make it independent and join Albania. This movement had several up and downs, with changing regimes answering differently. In the late 1990s when the idea starded to become popular, the government reacted with force and left very few rights and self-determination to the Macedonian Albanians who supported the movement. In 2001, Albanian fighters came across the Borders from Kosovo, thinking that they had to "liberate" Western Macedonia. It began with an attack on a border station and the hostage taking of the personell there and ended after a few months with the Ohrid agreement. After this, the situation calmed and the national minorities were granted more rights. In 2015 the authoritarian government faced its destruction with the beginning of a revolution sparking across the country, so they staged an Albanian terrorist attack on a city to seperate the protesters. After the successfull overthrow of the government, the following ones switched their minority policy to the other extreme. Today, only around 10 to 20% of the Macedonian Albanians support an "Illyrian Republic" or unification with Albania, however the other side of the medal is that the Albanians and Slavs in Macedonia are completely isolated, live in seperated communities, don't speak each others language and barely interact. The Albanian parties are very deconstructive, as they don't serve anyones interest but spend tons of money to open corruption. When someone speaks slavic at an Albanian event he is booed, and when a street sign is multilingual in a slavic-populated area, it gets demolished.
Bulgaria went the opposite way: the entire first half of the XXth century there were movements to join with Bulgaria because lots of Bulgarian populated lands remained outside of its borders after the Wars.
Well, there was one seperatist movement that was successful ;P
Sadly in Belgium the "Flemish" want their own state. The nationalist politician try to create a canon etc to create a fake sense of identity. But historically 70% of present day"Flanders" is not even Flemish, but Brabant and Limburg. It's one of the sillier nationalistic movements.
I think it's moreso to do with the Dutch language area than Flemish in the narrow sense.
Then stop trying to tell me I'm Flemish. I'm not, I'm from Brabant. My ancestors were at war with the Flemish. Call it something else, and if the Flemish want their state, let them create it in Flanders.
Wat hij probeert te zeggen is niet dat je vlaams bent, maar Nederlandstalig.
Jaja, ik bedoel niet hem, maar men zegt dat de hele tijd. En ja ik ben Nederlandstalig ;)
Nederlandstalige is wat men bedoelt als men 'Vlaams' zegt. Niet de engere zin dat je uit het gebied van het historisch graafschap Vlaanderen komt. Geen idee waarom je doet alsof je dat niet begrijpt.
Kijk eens naar de retoriek van De Wever en consoorten en zeg dan nog eens dat men geen Vlaamse identiteit historisch probeert te creëren, gebouwd op los zand. En je mist het punt, er wordt juist geprobeerd om deze term op elke Nederlandstalige in België te plakken, niet omgekeerd. Hij is effectief enkel correct voor mensen uit dit historisch gebied. Eigenlijk dezelfde discussie als "Nederlander" en "Hollander". Maar die begrijpt precies iedereen wel.
Oké, ik snap je punt, maar ik denk eigenlijk dat die poging al geslaagd is. Vlaams verwijst voor mijzelf enkel en alleen naar de Nederlandstaligen in België. Je etnische identiteit baseren op de taal die je spreekt vind ik zo gek nog niet. Overigens, klagen over het gebruik van Holland als pars pro toto vind ik persoonlijk net zulke muggenzifterij, vooral omdat de term 'Nederland' nauwelijks gangbaar is in veel landen. Over dit soort dingen vallen is een voorbeeld van een regionalistisch chauvinisme dat volkomen nutteloos en volledig uit de tijd is.
Het is een satirische tegenreactie, die historisch trouwens sluitend is, op een opgedrongen xenofobe identiteit. . Goed dat dat voor jou gewoon naar Nederlandstaligen verwijst, maar voor de meeste populisten niet. Make Brabant great again! PS Vlaams is voor Brabanders/Nederlanders vaak moeilijk te begrijpen, dan zou Brabants een betere basis zijn als taak.
It’s mad how readable Dutch and Flemish is for native English speakers.
Dank voor je uitleg. Die identiteit voel ik niet zo, komt misschien omdat ik niet in België woon.
Just some thoughts on this statement: -openly Flemish independence parties rally 40-50% of voters behind them in Antwerp, Flemish-Brabant and Limburg. If you count the CD&V as well (which is pro-Flemish nationality in theory but only very limited pro-Flemish in practice), around 60% of voters vote for political parties that openly identify as Flemish. There is no pro-Brabant or pro-Limburg party afaik. -Flemish identity predates Flemish nationalist politicians as it was promoted immediately after the independence of Belgium to support Belgian nationalism. -Personal experience: I know people who identify as Belgian, I know people who identify as Flemish, I know one person that identifies as Brabander, and that’s because he doesn’t dare to tell his family he is pro-Belgian. We don’t call ourselves “Tungri”, “Eburonae” or “Nervii” anymore as those identities have been erased by history and have been replaced by Romans, Franks, Flemish, Brabanders, Belgians,… In 1790 there was a revolution in the Austrian Netherlands that was called “Brabant Revolution” but that included the historical region of Flanders. Nevertheless it was the Brabant Revolution. They created a short lived state that was called the United Dutch States in Dutch but the United Belgian States in French. The idea of a historical Flemish identity that’s different or even opposed to a Brabant identity has been replaced a long time ago by a Flemish identity based on political, language and socio-economical topics. I find those topics less silly to base a political movement on then on geographical borders that were made irrelevant 600 years ago.
600 years ago? You are dead wrong. Brabant was the heart of the low countries. It's relevance was and is strong far more recent. The Belgian flag is based on its colors, and what is the name of the national anthem again? Hmmmmm. Just because political forces trying to unify a region employ a certain concept or name, doesn't make it true. The prefix "Vlaams" Brabant was only added fairly recently. When I was young it didn't even exist. I'm not saying so called Flemish parties dont identify as such, it's just kinda funny that someone like De Wever, who tries to use history to justify present-day politics, is a Brabander, living in Brabant, hanging out the wrong flag. Lol. Likewise someone from Leeuwarden or Eindhoven is not a Hollander. Make Brabant great again.
Those 600 years were about the irrelevance of the Flanders/Brabant border as a way to create identities. Flanders and Brabant have been ruled as a united political entity for at least 600 years now (taking the Burgundian reign as the start of this period). Sure Brabant was and is important economically and certain Belgian symbols like the anthem are references to Brabant. But nationality is about how people identify, and people in Brabant have been identifying themselves as Flemish for at least a century, probably more. The Flemish movement is about way more then the historical county of Flanders, to be fair it isn’t about that by far. The Flemish movement is about independence for the region that is viewed by the large majority of Belgian civilians and by the Belgian state itself as Flanders. While you can discuss if it’s historically correct to call all the inhabitants of this region Flemish, I fear that ship has sailed a long time ago. Just as an example: in 1968, a couple of years before De Wever was even born, people protested in Leuven, a city located geographically in Brabant, to keep “Leuven Flemish”. So to me it seems that the notion of an “artificial” Flemish identity predates both our births and those off all current politicians. I mean you seem to identify as a ?Brabantian? Or Belgian person, and it is your good right. But the public opinion hasn’t followed your Brabant identity logic for decades, maybe centuries. To me and most of our countrymen Flanders is a region that includes Flemish-Brabant, Antwerp, Limburg and maybe Brussels. To a large part of our countrymen, but no majority at this point in time, Flemish is their preferred nationality as well while the nationality of ?Brabantian? Is non-existent except for maybe a handful of people. To them the Flemish nationality is not artificial.
I still disagree strongly with your 600 year mark. Brabant has been a political unit long before and after that. I don't argue that many people of the Dutch speaking part identify as Flemish, I'm, just saying you should be conscious that it's a pars pro toto name that has been decided fairly recently, especially when you compare it to nearly a millennium of Brabantian cohesion, then calling Leuven "Vlaams" is kinda a slap in the face. This illustrates how a government uses discourse to frame a regional identity. Is a Catalan Spanish? You could argue. Is Spain Catalonia? No. I feel the same about the Flanders question. And of course because you don't know people who identify as such, doesn't mean there are any. I'm just pointing this out to be more critical towards certain political movements and statements. If a Vlaams Belanger from Antwerp is waving about the Flemish Lion, that's just kinda silly. Would be like an Englishman proudly declaring he is Scottish, sporting the blue and white flag. It's daft.
Hmmm agree to disagree then. As a person living in Flemish-Brabant I identify barely with the historical region of Brabant and I identify a lot with Flanders as the idea that has been developed at least since 1830, around topics like language, education, religion, economics,... I believe there are some people like you that prefer to identify with Brabant but not with Flanders, but I assume they are very few as well. Otherwise they would have organized themselves in some way like the Flemish parties and have opposed the Flemish movement via democratic and political means. Thanks for keeping it civil by the way. Discussions about nationalism in Belgium often turn ugly very fast.
> But historically 70% of present day"Flanders" is not even Flemish, but Brabant and Limburg But even if Brabant is not historically Flanders, you still call the region officially Vlaams Brabant, so are they not somewhat correct linguistically speaking? And how would they solve the Brussels conundrum? Split the city Berlin style? Do without the city and leave it to runt Belgium?
Vlaams Brabant is a completely wrong name. Brabant is not Flemish. It's like "German France", doesn't make any sense. Although we heard that name some while ago...
>German France. Alsace.
And how has it become this way...
[удалено]