Since the Flags thread seems to be going a bit off topic with some specific speculation on the united Kingdom... This topic is to take the off topic, on topic.

Note: I am no historian, and wasnt educated in the UK, so I may make a few mistakes here and there. Whats here is based on my frequent tours of Museums, and what I can see on Google/Wikipedia.; Please correct anything you know is wrong.

First off, to folks who have never been to Britain (the UK). The UK was traditionaly made up of 4 countries, this is how it all came to be:

1: England - Despite what a lot of folk think, England is not the whole country. If you call it "England" when you're in one of the other countries, you can expect dirty looks at best, and a fight at worst (especially in the bad parts of Glesca).

2: Wales - Conquered/Annexed by the English in the 13th century, and merged into the English law system in the 16th century.

3: Scotland - Began sharing the same King with from James I (or VI depending on how you look at it) - The son of Mary Queen of Scots (who you've probably heard of) and succeeded Elizabeth I (who you've also probably heard of) because she didnt have any direct heirs(James was her Nephew) in 1603. However, they remained seperate countries (putting the king in an odd situation of almost going to war with himself - England's traditional enemy, France, was Scotland's tradional ally). "Great Britain" with Scotland and England retaining seperate legal systems, but a single government in London began in 1707.

4: Ireland - Similar situation, the crowns of Ireland and England were united (again, in a personal union, so the king was the king of more than one seperate country) in 1543 and an act of union came into being in 1800 again combining the Irish government with the British one (Becoming "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireleand". This would remain the case (with a lot of dissent) until World War 1 where Southern Ireland (later the Irish Free state, and now the modern state of Ireland) managed to make "Home Rule" stick (so back to the many countries - One King thing... Which still goes on today with Canada, Australia, etc). Ireland remained Neutral in World War 2 (With many volunteers signing on with Britain anyway), and in 1949 becoming a fully independent republic. Northern Ireland at this point "opted out" of the Republic of Ireland, and remained in the Uk (or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it says on my passport).

(Note, Cornwall is kinda funny, with some separatists claiming its a fifth country... but this isnt widely accepted...).

So thats history, and funny enough it just happens to end at Fallout's Divergence with the following as its probable status quo (based on the state of play in 1950)

The country is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Scotland retains a seperate Legal system, overseen by the "scottish office" (Uk Government Department), but no devolved parlement (in the real world, this would occur in the 1990's) - Westminster instead passes laws that essentialy have an English version, and a Scottish version, to keep everything level.
Northern Ireland with a devolved parlement (this would be suspended in 1972 in the real world), but a lot of internal fighting going on.
England and Wales as more or less one legal unit (in the real world, a limited devolved parlement would be setup in the 1990's for Wales)

The Dominions of the UK (Australia, Canada, NZ, etc) are more or less established as independent countries sharing the same Monarch - the only key differences is that we dont have Ambassidors between each other (an Ambassidor represents/stands in for the head of state, and having someone represent the Queen in a meeting with the Queen would effectively make put the Queen in a position of meeting herself - Back to the Future tells us this is a bad idea; Instead having "High Commisioners" take the same role), but still looking to the UK for guidance (kinda like Client states of an empire).

The UK has the strategic location of Gibraltar at the mouth of the Mediterainain (as it does today).

---
Extrapolation of possible future - Feel free to debate any of this.

Groups like Plain Crymu (Wales) and the Scottish Nationalsist Party would be pushing for Devolution, or outright independence for their regions. However, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_movement#Scottish_home_rule suggests that scottish home rule didnt reinter mainstream politics until the 1960's.; Whilst the SNP was pushing for a system similar to today, it wasnt pushing all the way, and didnt win a parlementary seat until 1967.

If we accept that the world didnt move on much from 1950's thinking everywhere (not just in the US), then Scotland could reasonably be considered to have a devolved Parliament like today but All out independence is right out for scotland at least.

In Wales, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_independence suggests Plaid Crymu started getting electoral success in 1960, suggesting a groundswell toward the end of the 50's, in turn suggesting a welsh independence movement in Fallout's world could have developed further than the scottish one - But not enough to secure it.

Northern Ireland more or less made its structual intentions clear in 1949.

So I would suggest that Wales and Scotland Devolved.  Probably to the same timescale, and same rights and powers as the real world as this is a development of a movement that was clear in the 1950's, but they remained in the UK and there wasnt a question of them leaving.  Northern Ireland too, but the sectarian violence probably continued (unlike thankfully in the real world).

---

I know its a bit heavy, and there'll probably be some winges about me quoting wikipedia there, but does anyone have any comments?

well it couldve have gone any way after 1950, with Scottish Nationalist Party or Plain Crymu winning in election earlier or replaced with totally different parties at that, no way of knowing without seeing a map of the world as it was before the Resource Wars with marked borders.

England couldve been a Dictatorship by 1990 for all we know, or Germany never united or the Arabian nation uniting to an solid bloc pushing out the Israelis into the mediterranian, the Warzaw Pact dissolving by 1970, Poland never gaining freedom trough Solidaritat party (Lech Walesa ya know)

as said before without any concrete facts from the devs or maps of the nations its hard to know how different nations looked like in Fallout universe before the war.

As I said in that other thread, it's likely that the various colonies of the British Empire did not gain independence like they did in the real world (or at least not until the Resource Wars). And perhaps the UK annexed the whole of Ireland, like the US annexed Canada. I'd expect the UK to dissolve during the Resource Wars too.



Or Germany united, but through East Germany annexing West Germany, not the other way around?

possibly, that couldve happen too, you can theorize almost anything to happen when you dont have any serious fact about it, like the Warzaw pact bordering France, and Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway uniting into an Northern Defence Alliance (since we got no facts at all about that part of Europe, but the issue have been talked about here since the 1800's.)
Schweiz (Switzerland for you foreign guys) svcked up into Austria/italy/France/Germany, Spain remains a facist state with other Generalisimo's taking over after Franco's death in 1975, Franco dies earlier then 1975 causing democratization earlier or perhaps another civil war, Japan never becomes a major technological nation but stays in status qou after WWII, Mao Tse-Dong dies earlier or later then 1976, maybe China has more wars the IRL (maybe against England over Hong-Kong?) South-Africa remains Apartheid for longer or lesser time, Turkey and Greece going Communist due to internal strife etc etc.

what i want to see in the coming DLC is a map over Europe, just one small map somewhere in some military HQ, but my guess is we only see maps of Alaska...

well, i think its likely that many of the nations of europe ended up uniting in some form or other ( a militaristic european union?) in order to counter the middle east during the resource wars. bearing in mind that we have 120-odd years to work with between 1950 divergence and the day the bombs fell. we can assume that much of the world proceeded much the same way as it actually did. it's 2009 now, and china is a rising superpower, who can say that in 60 years there wont be a war? certainly the war can't have been going on for decades because the bombs drop in 2077 and the war is still primarily over anchorage, because united states defeating the chinese in alaska sparked the nuclear exchange, therefore, we can assume that this was the primary drain on war resources, because neither side would have used the nuclear option unless the balance had just tipped substantially.
i believe that europe like suffered some sort of massive breakdown around 2050, because the vaults begin in 2054, and SOMETHING must have sparked interest in fallout shelters and sociological interactions. perhaps the government planned to trick these people into the vaults by making them think there would be a nuclear exchange, and thus study how people who thought the world had ended would behave under different stresses?
we know russia or the USSR, whichever it is by the time of the war, is a nonentity on the world stage, which means that its fossil fuel reserves must have been spent before the resource wars.
the rest of the world must be in a similar state of collapse as the US, because otherwise there would be nations making claims on united states soil, or peacekeeping operations, or something.
of course, the us could simply be quarantined...
sorry about the long post, i got a bit carried away with implications.

"Despite what a lot of folk think, England is not the whole country"


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

People think that!?

It was called the European Commonwealth, and is canon.

NATO..

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

" The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Hope that helps

I doubt NATO still existed by 2077, though.

and the 5 treaty of brussels states were belgium france uk netherlands and luxembourg

I doubt NATO still existed by 2077, though. quote

I feel as if there would have been a greater need for NATO during the great war.

If China invaded alaska Canada then all NATO Members WOULD have been summoned to liberate alaska.


hmm just thinking, annex doesnt mean invade does it? surely that would have been an infringment of NATO agreements

on America's behalf!? lol

I too very much doubt that NATO still exists, if the resource wars got that bad then it would be everyman for himself, it has been only 60 years since the last wars, who knows what is going to happen in the next 60? Also, I would imagine that there would be antagonism between Europe and Russia as the Middle east has proven very deft at playing one off the other before.

Just a few general pointers, I don't think the UK would be doing that well. The service revolution may never have occured (looking at computers and the fact that there are factories in DC itself), I'm unsure what the UK would have supplied to keep itself afloat.

Interesting thread. My opinion on the position of British Commonwealth nations is that the Commonwealth would have been dissolved. There are two reasons for this.

1) If the UK became a member of a European Commonwealth, this would almost certainly mean the abolishon of the monarchy, no monarchy = no Queen/King = No United Kingdom = no British Commonwealth!

2) The attack on Canada would result in Britain going to war with the USA. British Commonwealth countries are under a military defense pact, exclusive to the commonwealth. Oh, and we have an independent nuclear capability (enough to destroy the US several times over), not to mention India's nuclear arsenal (And France's, if France is in the European Commonwealth).

The possible exception is that I read on Fallout wiki that the United Kingdom (Note United 'KINGDOM') was the 'leader' of the European Commonwealth. If this is true, then it is theoretical that the British Monarch is the leader of not only the British Commonwealth but also the European Commonwealth. That would actually be a superpower far more powerful than the States!

If this second option is what happened, then the UK would be in a very strong position in the years predating the resource wars, and would probably have suffered less than the other nations involved due to it's huge sphere of influence/potential resources. It is unlikely that separatists within the UK would WANT to separate, never mind having the political or military muscle required to do so.

Of course, as there was no British intervention following the US annex, we can probably assume that the UK was in no position to do so. Either way, I find the European situation fascinating. Bethesda should really expand on this element of Fallout law because we really know very little about it. Fallout 4 in the UK PLEASE!!!!! Tenpenny is described as a refugee from Britain so we can assume that it is an a dreadful state (The relatively small land mass would mean that there would almost certainly not be as many survivors than in the States.) but the fact that Tenpenny survived AND had the resources to cross the Atlantic proves that at least some form of civilisation still exists in the UK. I really find it facinating.

Dis agree if the British Empire had stayed intact then Britain would have been a HUGE power to contend with during the Resource War.
Having India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Kenya, South Africa, a small part of Mexica and Brazil...
I dont believe people quite understand the sheer size of the British Empire before it was forced to relinquish its grip on the world after WWII
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6641/falloutwolrd5ey2.jpg

I see no reason for the British to give up thier Empire, especially due to the fact that the time line broke.
Why did it break? Because instead of stopping the arms race of WWII they continued it.
Why would a huge Empire in a non-stop arms race give up its Empires?

Also people use two arguments for the British to not have survived the war;
a) They where wiped out in the Resource war and B) Everything, every single last ship, was nuked.

a) Presumably their enemy during the Resource war was Russia, and all the people threatening thier Colonies.

Russia is land locked except for a small channel, this could be blockaded and then Britain would have sea supremacy....
Leaving Britain to fight Russia on the land, which I agree could be difficult.... but they have to go a bloody long way on land would take a long time especially when fighting all the way.

As for the countries threatening her Colonies; US in Canada and China in India... They are both also fighting each other meaning they are not going to launch an invasion against the British Island, this means all the Colonies have to do is survive and with the HUGE British navy and the vast ammount of Colonial troops that would not be that difficult especially when both the attacks have other enemies that they are primarily concentrating on.

B) The idea that every single city in every single Colony and that every single ship was nuked is INSANE!!!!

It depends on the nature and political system of the European Commonwealth. Britain is a member of the EU now, yet they haven't abolished monarchy.

That's because the European members are completely autonomous but there would be no place for a monarchy in a single European super-state. How could there be? It would be a democracy.

We don't know if the European Commonwealth was a "single European state" in the Fallout universe.

As a british person I cannot explain how proud I am of the empire we created based on fair trade and occasional bloodshed. All the greatstuff we gave the world like football and cricket.

But.... UK is nothing these days we would have been wiped. No one here even feels british anymore its full of immigrants..All about Australia's policy's on immagration.

Former glory at around 1950's time:


http://web000.greece.k12.ny.us/SocialStudiesResources/Social_Studies_Resources/GHG_Documents/British%20Empire%201910%20Map%2001.03.jpg

When i was little I could never get my head around how small England was and how big her empire was!!

Be proud America! you were once part of the LARGEST Empire ever on Earth!

Some say the British Empire never fell, it just changed continents (Americans).

FALLOUT 4 UK!!!!!!

Oh and dont get it twisted MONGOLS had largest single land mass which leads to the assumption they had the biggest

But GB had the largest In terms of size spreadout in the world.

And yes I beleive alot of British Navy would have survived a nuclear holocaust because of how far apart it was spread.

Change 'England' for 'Great Britain' otherwise our Scottish, Welsh and Irish compatriots will get pissed off.


Well, 13 states were. The Empire was at it's height long after they rebelled.


Those people would be idiots.


Agreed!


No, that glory goes to the UK as well. Canada is the second largest country on Earth and it was part of the Empire (Bigger than the Mongol's territory)


Indeed, "The Empire where the sun never sets". At it's height, one third of the Earth's poulation were living in the British Empire.


I can't stress this enough... NOBODY WOULD SURVIVE A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST! Some might live a little longer to die an extremely painful death but that is short turn survivability. Everybody dies.. fact.

I can't stress this enough... NOBODY WOULD SURVIVE A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST! Some might live a little longer to die an extremely painful death but that is short turn survivability. Everybody dies.. fact quote-

apperently they do in fallout 3 mate... lol

Or a democracy for that matter, for all we know, the British Queen was the head of state for the entire thing, as unlikely as that may be, we just don't know.



Not if your armies and navies are bogged down in Europe fighting an endless war versus little powers as well as two huge superpowers slowly coming towards your island, not to mention a lack of fuel and uranium, the annexation of Canada would be the least of your problems.



Well old boy, even Her Majesty's army has pulled out of Iraq!

But ze French? Well we are vaporizing African countries that dare challenge the power of French democracy!



As I remember, the British gave up their colonies because they were a financial drain AFTER the war on the build up for the Cold War effort. If they did, however, hold on, we know what would have happened, they would have been stuck in multiple quagmires like every other Empire that attempted to retain its colonies. With the prevalence of Communism, anti-colonialism would have run at its strongest, in the Middle East, for instance, anti-colonials were using nukes, and Britain would have gladly wanted to free itself from its colonies in such an atmosphere.



Their enemy wasn't just Russia, it was all of Europe, they weren't "lets make NATO work Nation-States", they were "bickering nation-states" for a reason, they wanted resources for their countries and their people the same sentiments were across all Europe. The Resource Wars were chaotic and devastating then when you throw in nuclear war, well, its not that stretch of the imagination for much not being left.

Besides most of the British navy, that used oil, was probably retired and then nuked to oblivion. All that was left was used against the Brit's one time allies and partners in the European Commonwealth. And who is to say the British would STILL have control of Gibraltar, their only real access to the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, if you subtract that then the Russians would have two access points to hit the UK, the Baltic Sea, which you seem to forget about, as well as, the Black Sea.

Their superiority in submarine tech, which was renowned in the Cold War, would help them against a primarily focused British surface fleet. If the Brits also decide to pounce on the Russians at either of these two points, Russia could use the Chinese doctrine of asymmetric warfare, and vaporize their surface fleet easily. The Mercenary's Mace is a very scary Chinese war plan, I must say, that they planned to use against our American Aircraft Carriers. Since we stress their use so much, the plan has rendered them obsolete when fighting an offensive war against the Chinese. Their "active defense" would beat any offensive navy, however, America used Power Armor, which devastated the Chinese on their own soil.

You're proud that your country can defeat a dirt poor country with the world's most disorganized military?

Doobie doo.... double post.