“Jamaica’s push to become a republic is driven more by emotional reflex than rational planning.”
Emotional reflex, and also the eternal desire of the politicians for more political jobs, more power, and fancier titles.
These factors drive a lot of modern independence movements, even when there’s no question of replacing a symbolic monarch. For example, when Slovakia split from Czechoslovakia. My impression from the news reports is that nobody in Czechoslovakia really wanted that split except the Slovak political class and the usual cliques whose overdeveloped emotional drives happened to settle on nationalism for an outlet. Much the same could probaby be said for Scotland.
In all cases, the result is two weaker countries instead of one stronger one--or, in the case of the British empire, one weaker country and one slightly weakened politico-cultural unity. Which raises the question of how much is due to meddling from outside by other powers, larger or smaller, whose interest it is to weaken those who might oppose them.
"I would probably have emphasized the suspicious pattern globally where monarchies tend to be quite good countries (mostly north European). Is there some causal effect there?"
I have read the suggestion that monarchs consider the countries they govern as their personal property and therefore have a vested interest in the well-being of their subjects. However, there are several examples where monarchs are cruel and overbearing.
“Jamaica’s push to become a republic is driven more by emotional reflex than rational planning.”
Emotional reflex, and also the eternal desire of the politicians for more political jobs, more power, and fancier titles.
These factors drive a lot of modern independence movements, even when there’s no question of replacing a symbolic monarch. For example, when Slovakia split from Czechoslovakia. My impression from the news reports is that nobody in Czechoslovakia really wanted that split except the Slovak political class and the usual cliques whose overdeveloped emotional drives happened to settle on nationalism for an outlet. Much the same could probaby be said for Scotland.
In all cases, the result is two weaker countries instead of one stronger one--or, in the case of the British empire, one weaker country and one slightly weakened politico-cultural unity. Which raises the question of how much is due to meddling from outside by other powers, larger or smaller, whose interest it is to weaken those who might oppose them.
"I would probably have emphasized the suspicious pattern globally where monarchies tend to be quite good countries (mostly north European). Is there some causal effect there?"
I have read the suggestion that monarchs consider the countries they govern as their personal property and therefore have a vested interest in the well-being of their subjects. However, there are several examples where monarchs are cruel and overbearing.