If the argument that scale hurts (all small western countries are very rich, but big countries complain "we're too big because we can't do that and that), then the obvious solution would be to split up. For me it seems just too easy. I think the reasons are more related to the culture than to the size.

It's not that scale hurts; there are many benefits to scale. But obviously, it makes some things harder to deal with. Iceland has a population of 320,000 or so people and only one major city. Politics is a lot simpler with a population that small.

Indeed. Scale has benefits, one can see that for big companies, which have, despite bureaucracy and politics, quite some advantages - scale, wide skills, easier access to financing, global resource access etc.

How does splitting up a country seem easy? It didn't go so well for the US in the 1860's. Over 600,000 people died.

That's because some idiot decided not to let the worst states in the Union leave the rest of us alone.

Right - the process may get ugly.

I am not assuming anything. As a recent citizen of the US I am just observing that the US doesn't seem to be willing to look at other countries and learn from them because somehow the US is perceived as special. Examples where the US could learn a lot IMO are:

- health system

- broadband coverage (argument "the US has low population density". But why does the coverage in LA suck then? It should be a dream for a competitive market.

- murder rates

- incarceration rates

- poverty rates

Reflexively rejecting other countries' experiences is hurting this country big time.