James C. Bennett argues in The Anglosphere Challenge that English speaking societies have a peculiar tendency to seek spatial solutions to social disputes.
English speakers, however much they dispute economic, social, or moral issues, have tended to express these differences by spatial composition or decomposition of their regimes - union and secession - rather than regime decomposition - replacing one constitution with another. [p.193]
Looking back on this history, it is not surprising that Continental European and Marxist ideas of revolution, almost always expressed in regime-composition terms, have never found a natural home in any English-speaking nation. Since 1789, France has had five republics, two empires, two monarchies, and miscellaneous directories, consulates, and so on - but its territorial boundaries are today only slightly different from those of 1789. The United Kingdom has had the same Constitution (much evolved, but built on English roots even older) since its founding in 1707; the United States still operates under the Constitution of 1789, also much evolved, but also very much rooted in the same underlying principles as that of Britain. The borders of both Unions, however, have changed numerous times. Thus, it's worth noting that France responded to a spatial-composition crisis - the Algerian Revolution in 1958 - with a regime-recomposition solution, the transition from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic. In comparison, Anglosphere nations reacted to regime-composition crises such as the Navigation Acts, the slavery issue, or Irish Catholic emancipation with spatial composition solutions. [p.196]
What are the secessions or unions needed today?