Losing a competition is not so good. History is littered with countries, cultures, civilizations that lost. And I suspect there were many more that are simply forgotten until an archaeologist digs them up!
To paint with a very broad brush, the U.K. would hardly be in the position it is in if it hadn't imperialized so heavily.
English is the world's dominant language, meaning everyone else has to learn English, instead of the English having to learn Chinese, Polish, Spanish, etc.
The old connections make London a prime financial center, and even that future is questionable given Brexit and the prominence of alternatives like New York and Singapore.
The UK's edge and reach comes from its cultural products. Once the bankers have gone and the techies find better qualities of life away from London's shuttered clubs and the UK's draconian survellience and drug laws, all that's left is James Bond and Harry Potter.
I hope I don't come across as being too pessimistic about England's future, but just as it is in a reasonably good state now, it could just as easily be gearing up for a nasty nosedive.
Equally as an englander, I fear I have to point out that if Scotland wants true independence, you´re going to have to persuade your politicians to drop out of the currency union as well as the political one.
... And manage without the Barnett Formula money, and low oil prices, and somehow manage your pension obligations, and the Shetlands which actually own the oilfields want to stay British anyway, and...
Still, I love Freedom, so whatever you democratically decide :-)
I'd argue more recently, up 'til Suez, and we were fortunately out-competed by a notional ally - it could have gone very differently if the USSR was the one to out-produce or out-innovate us.
I think that's apples to oranges - I really think there is a difference in loosing military control of an empire versus losing economic dominance. The US isn't going to cut spending on it's military substantially because china makes a better cellphone than Apple. Apple will continue to compete, and consumers will enjoy better phones at lower cost.
But if China makes a wide range of products better than the US then presumably they'd be able to afford to spend more on their military than the US does?
I'd argue they already do, America just captures a lot of the value of their labor back home. I don't see this arrangement changing anytime soon.
I'd also argue that, while I see your point about less tax revenue, military spending seems to march to the beat of it's own drum regardless of US's coffers. I don't know if that's sustainable to be that decoupled, but it seems like it is right now.
Agreed. At the same time, those cultures were objectively 'worse'.
They were xenophobic. They were sexist. They were racist. They were superstitious.
Disruption happens at the level of nations. The USA has reinvented itself many times before, and will do so again. So far, in the competition between the USA and China, China has moved much more towards a capitalistic, free society than the USA has moved towards totalitarianism.
I'm not stating it is a guarantee. But it is a risk worth taking. And I suspect you agree. And by all means, let's not only end up as an interesting archaelogical dig.
Losing a competition is not so good. History is littered with countries, cultures, civilizations that lost. And I suspect there were many more that are simply forgotten until an archaeologist digs them up!