Indeed, which is why I tried to word my response in a "So what, if they are..." kind of a way, but less bluntly expressed. :P

True... But ultimately, they do answer to a higher power. I'm not saying that counties aren't independantly controlled at all, but I am simply suggesting that maybe all counties could be completely devolved, so that issues can be locally, and only locally, targeted. Of course, this wouldn't be a viable option to any single government, a central hub would still exist, but instead of a 'chain of command' so to speak, where ultimately, the centre decides what's best, the separate counties would simply come together to discuss what is needed in their area. So basically, each county has it's own PM. Of course, communication would have to be A1 for such an opperation to work, and a different stance adopted towards the idea of the political system.

Again, this is true... But what is to say that the separate countries couldn't function as separate entities. There are many countries smaller than the UK, even smaller than it's separate constituent parts that operate alone, and get along in the world just as a lot of other countries. Just like any other UK country, the Welsh live lives much like the English, Scottish or Irish do - and as you rightly pointed out, said countries, on their own, also have much lower populations, which could potentially make self-sustainance as a country much more reasonable - So why should there be a struggle if the UK should splinter into it's separate parts?

I like the idea of a country with loads of political parties which has only a few higher representatives making decisions, at least on the national level. I'm so tired of all the terrible gridlock in America, and then when a decision does get made, it's awful :'(

Okay so I might of gotten the terms confused a little however once you got to read more of my posts I think you could get what I was trying to say.
Here's a hypthetical situation here: If I saw someone's post that was similar to mine, a statement with no reason or explanation put forward I would actually ask them to explain themselves and put the reason why they think that way. That way I don't unintentionally upset anyone and I can make a clearer understanding of what they mean for when I would debate with them.

Does this make sense?

Some people do end up saying one thing but meaning something else, they might get their words mixed up and the like. It would save alot of frustration and miscommunication if people actually asked for people to explain themselves before they make a judgement.

I do understand your point, now the misunderstanding is resolved - but I just didn't think that such a point would appear in a thread about countries themselves, particularly when such identities actually cross borders as they formally exist, and adherence and interest are far from universal anywhere.