Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
You have to go back to pre 1535. Then the crown submitted spiritually to the pope. Then Henry VIII decided to have a church which was still 'Catholic' but without the pope. The idea that he would start to submit spiritually to the A o C, or anybody else on the planet was for the birds. The pope was unique. So supreme authority both in politics and the church had to rest with Henry VIII and the crown thereafter. If you wanted your head to stay on your shoulders you agreed.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
If you thought Covid has impacted the economy wait to you see what the inability to import goods will do..
I 100% expect us to be able to import goods. I'm typing on a Laptop imported from the far east despite it not being in the EU . . . funny that!
I 100% expect our logistics to be screwed up in multiple ways (bar air freight an awful lot of far east stock comes via Rotterdam and is then delivered via Lorry).
But yep, you continually look at the big picture and miss out the detail. And it's detail that kills you oh such as tariffs which will mean any exports to the EU are suddenly 10% (say) more expensive
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I remember a curate announcing in his last sermon that he was leaving the Church of England, causing a bit of a stir, only to follow that with the explanation that he was moving to Edinburgh and so would be transferring to the Church of Scotland.
Would that, btw, have been to the Episcopalian Church of Scotland? Rather than the tout court C of S or one of its various Presbyterian offshoots? In which case the surprise would have been even less misplaced and the anecdote even btter, as the Piskies here are the sister church of the C of E and in the same Anglican communion. Bit like a bank worker moving from Nat West to RBS ... [edit: nothing implied about quality of the banks or kirks, just that it's a name change ...]
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
Enthusiasm doesn't increase the weight of your vote, though.
It kind of does, in that it increases the probability that you'll cast it.
I hate to say it, but maybe there's a streak in humanity that makes dislike more of a motivator than enthusiasm, just as bad news sells media better than good news?
But you can't vote against someone, it has to be for someone, and if dislike is the only motivation then the vote is unfocussed.
Not in a Yes/No referendum.
You're not voting for someone in a referendum.
Pretty sure plenty of folk will be voting against 'someone' in Indy ref II.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
You have to go back to pre 1535. Then the crown submitted spiritually to the pope. Then Henry VIII decided to have a church which was still 'Catholic' but without the pope. The idea that he would start to submit spiritually to the A o C, or anybody else on the planet was for the birds. The pope was unique. So supreme authority both in politics and the church had to rest with Henry VIII and the crown thereafter. If you wanted your head to stay on your shoulders you agreed.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
And an interesting anomaly to add to that is the fact that the English bishops still have some seats in the Lords. (Can't remember if Welsh ones do.)
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Valencia, prepared for a second wave. The Minister of Universal Health, Ana Barceló, has guaranteed that the Valencian Community is prepared for a possible second wave of the coronavirus, with reinforcement of personnel, beds, trackers and material for six months. "I hope that this system does not have to enter and all the outbreaks are encapsulated and controlled," he said in Les Corts. Murcia: More details about Totana. The entry and exit of the municipality, of about 30,000 inhabitants, is prohibited. Day centers are closed and residence visits are restricted, while their health centers will be closed, except for care related to the coronavirus pandemic. 13:04 In Totana there have been 55 cases of coronavirus associated with attending nightclubs. The Minister of Health of Murcia, Manuel Villegas, has made a special appeal to the Latin American community based in the region, which brings together 60% of infections by Covid-19.
If you thought Covid has impacted the economy wait to you see what the inability to import goods will do..
I 100% expect us to be able to import goods. I'm typing on a Laptop imported from the far east despite it not being in the EU . . . funny that!
I 100% expect our logistics to be screwed up in multiple ways (bar air freight an awful lot of far east stock comes via Rotterdam and is then delivered via Lorry).
But yep, you continually look at the big picture and miss out the detail. And it's detail that kills you oh such as tariffs which will mean any exports to the EU are suddenly 10% (say) more expensive
I think on average tariffs are much less than 10%, I believe 2% is the average from memory.
Though the drop in sterling since the referendum is more than that so our exporters should be finding themselves in a competitive position to export even with tariffs.
Tariffs don't stop the Chinese from exporting to us do they?
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Anyone working in IT development or support is already aware of this. Websites like Freelancer.com often mean you are competing for contracts with somebody who can work for $5 a day instead of £30 per hour.
On the flipside though, if the work is non-trivial it is often better paying the premium of having someone local. I (and other IT professionals) have often made money correcting or replacing the "cheap version" of a corporate project.
Re Mask Wearing - I note that Countries that have far far higher mask wearing percentage than we do are seeing a big rise in cases eg Japan, Spain.
Mask wearing is a response to the increase in cases not a cause.
Yes - many of the outbreaks are happening where there has not been mask use - in bars/clubs, etc or in family reunions, weddings, etc. Also some outbreaks among agricultural workers.
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
By March 2020 introduced the biggest state aid scheme in the UKs history.
Isn't today the one year anniversary of when Johnson became PM? Aren't we over ten years into Conservative Government?
The idea that the UK received a new government in December 2019 that was utterly unconnected the previous ones is a flat out lie.
Within two months of the start of a once in a 100 year pandemic, and on the day the Lockdown was annouced, the Furlough scheme was also annouced. The most ambitious and challenging state aid package ever which has worked a treat. Please explain how this is an astonishing failure??
To be fair, can't lay all the blame at PM Johnson's door. There had, had there not, been contingency planning while May was in office, and indeed, before but all plans had, for whatever reason, been shelved. Not sure whether that was under May or Johnson.
Wonder whether those included the furlough!
I fail to see how any contiigency planning could have led to a better or more timely economic response to the pandemic than what the Government has put into place.
It's possible, though that they are accused of rushing and not moving fast enough makes me concerned.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I remember a curate announcing in his last sermon that he was leaving the Church of England, causing a bit of a stir, only to follow that with the explanation that he was moving to Edinburgh and so would be transferring to the Church of Scotland.
That would be a surprise. The Church of England is not in Communion with the Church of Scotland. He may not have realised that the Episcopal Church in Scotland is a separate organisation.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
You have to go back to pre 1535. Then the crown submitted spiritually to the pope. Then Henry VIII decided to have a church which was still 'Catholic' but without the pope. The idea that he would start to submit spiritually to the A o C, or anybody else on the planet was for the birds. The pope was unique. So supreme authority both in politics and the church had to rest with Henry VIII and the crown thereafter. If you wanted your head to stay on your shoulders you agreed.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
And an interesting anomaly to add to that is the fact that the English bishops still have some seats in the Lords. (Can't remember if Welsh ones do.)
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Anyone working in IT development or support is already aware of this. Websites like Freelancer.com often mean you are competing for contracts with somebody who can work for $5 a day instead of £30 per hour.
On the flipside though, if the work is non-trivial it is often better paying the premium of having someone local. I (and other IT professionals) have often made money correcting or replacing the "cheap version" of a corporate project.
As you say there are risks outsourcing brain power. Its not like moving the widget factory to China.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
You have to go back to pre 1535. Then the crown submitted spiritually to the pope. Then Henry VIII decided to have a church which was still 'Catholic' but without the pope. The idea that he would start to submit spiritually to the A o C, or anybody else on the planet was for the birds. The pope was unique. So supreme authority both in politics and the church had to rest with Henry VIII and the crown thereafter. If you wanted your head to stay on your shoulders you agreed.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
And an interesting anomaly to add to that is the fact that the English bishops still have some seats in the Lords. (Can't remember if Welsh ones do.)
The levels of expenses claimed by the Bishops are a useful embarrassment to some of the others :-) .
No shit Sherlock, it has been plan all along for the clowns, just make unreasonable demands and try to blame it on EU.
What is unreasonable about the U.K. position on fishing and on dynamic level playing field regulations?
Both sides professing astonishment and confusion at what the other is offering or not compromising on is extremely false and tedious. I would find it hard to work in an environment where I'd have to constantly repeat such nonsense.
Did you expect him to say that Brexit is a good thing?
Quite. He doesn't have to see any value in it, nor should his seeing any value or not affect his seeking the best deal for the EU in the aftermath. Therefore that comment is clearly just part of the game of each side trying to annoy the other, childish really.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
You have to go back to pre 1535. Then the crown submitted spiritually to the pope. Then Henry VIII decided to have a church which was still 'Catholic' but without the pope. The idea that he would start to submit spiritually to the A o C, or anybody else on the planet was for the birds. The pope was unique. So supreme authority both in politics and the church had to rest with Henry VIII and the crown thereafter. If you wanted your head to stay on your shoulders you agreed.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
And an interesting anomaly to add to that is the fact that the English bishops still have some seats in the Lords. (Can't remember if Welsh ones do.)
Welsh ones don't. They were disestablished in 1920. And it would only be an anomaly as such if and when the CoE were disestablished, as the H o L has always consisted of lords both 'Spiritual and Temporal'. Unusually we in England are not a secular state, something we share with Saudi Arabia and Iran though the style here is a little more laid back.
I suspect lots of English people are fairly content with the compromise which gives HM the Queen a unique position, being both sacred and secular (which she has combined with brilliance), and at the same time gives every person (of all religions and none by the way) access to the Church of England as of right simply by virtue of living here, and doesn't ask the taxpayer to pay for it. What's not to like?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
No shit Sherlock, it has been plan all along for the clowns, just make unreasonable demands and try to blame it on EU.
What is unreasonable about the U.K. position on fishing and on dynamic level playing field regulations?
Both sides professing astonishment and confusion at what the other is offering or not compromising on is extremely false and tedious. I would find it hard to work in an environment where I'd have to constantly repeat such nonsense.
I only do that on my free time.
Darn you! Now there’s no chance of @malcolmg coming up with a thoughtful and reasoned response...
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
If you thought Covid has impacted the economy wait to you see what the inability to import goods will do..
I 100% expect us to be able to import goods. I'm typing on a Laptop imported from the far east despite it not being in the EU . . . funny that!
I 100% expect our logistics to be screwed up in multiple ways (bar air freight an awful lot of far east stock comes via Rotterdam and is then delivered via Lorry).
But yep, you continually look at the big picture and miss out the detail. And it's detail that kills you oh such as tariffs which will mean any exports to the EU are suddenly 10% (say) more expensive
I think on average tariffs are much less than 10%, I believe 2% is the average from memory.
Though the drop in sterling since the referendum is more than that so our exporters should be finding themselves in a competitive position to export even with tariffs.
Tariffs don't stop the Chinese from exporting to us do they?
Indeed. Over the past twenty odd years at work our sales have gone from something like UK/EU/Rest of World 80/18/2% to 35/18/47% and that despite the EU adding countries.
Average WTO tariff under 2%. Meetings held across the world with engineers and buyers, hundreds; times anyone has mentioned trade deals or tariffs, never. Not once.
Not saying it applies universally, we sell engineering stuff not cows, or fruit, or cars, but it can be done.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
How very peculiar. It appears to be the "English" one, English in the sense that it has no jurisdiction in Scotland where the virus is concerned, and whose name appears in the little video in the tweet ("UK Goivernment Scotland").
But the tweet cites the website of VisotScotland, an agency of the Scottish government (and shows a photo of, I suspect, that cafe alley off Byres Road in Glasgow).
It may just be cooperation - but the dissonance at once raises questions about how reliable it is.
"The Conservative Party’s finances came under renewed scrutiny last night as it emerged that two of its MPs on the intelligence watchdog committee and 14 ministers had accepted donations linked to Russia.
Electoral Commission records show that six members of the cabinet and eight junior ministers received tens of thousands of pounds from individuals or businesses with links to Russia. The donations were made either to them or their constituency parties."
I'd assume much more than many would like though not as much as they think.
I'd expect HMG hasn't spent anything much at all actually, it looks like simply HMG sharing (probably without charge) something bought and paid for by the Scottish Government to me.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.
Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why have a ‘national’ church at all?
Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
Weren't the authorities making any efforts to disperse the crowds?
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
Its not beyond me, maybe people don't like being caged up at home like animals.
Actually animals don't like being caged up either.
The desire to go out and socialise is a natural impulse of humanity. Its very unnatural trying to suppress that.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
“ a supporter and upholder of Calvinism ”
Huh?
She toddles off to Crathie Kirk a few times a year, along with other parishioners. And has a chaplain at Holyrood/the High Kirk of St Giles. Otherwise, not much “supporting”, not much “upholding” and no “Calvinism” whatsoever.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
Its not beyond me, maybe people don't like being caged up at home like animals.
Actually animals don't like being caged up either.
The desire to go out and socialise is a natural impulse of humanity. Its very unnatural trying to suppress that.
There are plenty of open spaces where people can exercise, even in big cities. They don't need to congregate together like this.
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Anyone working in IT development or support is already aware of this. Websites like Freelancer.com often mean you are competing for contracts with somebody who can work for $5 a day instead of £30 per hour.
On the flipside though, if the work is non-trivial it is often better paying the premium of having someone local. I (and other IT professionals) have often made money correcting or replacing the "cheap version" of a corporate project.
In my industry (market research), there was a big push towards using Indian vendors for fieldwork and data processing services about a decade ago. There were quite often cultural problems in that the Indian vendors tended to say yes to whatever the client asked for, however unreasonable, and then couldn’t deliver. Within 2-3 years a lot of the work had come back again, although the Indian vendors are still around.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
Its not beyond me, maybe people don't like being caged up at home like animals.
Actually animals don't like being caged up either.
The desire to go out and socialise is a natural impulse of humanity. Its very unnatural trying to suppress that.
Nothing is stopping them going out but to gather in large crowds hugging each other and singing and bellowing over them is irresponsible and all for something as irrelevant as a football,trophy.
Off topic, but I’m currently experiencing the frustrations of job seeking. I did two full days of work for a law firm as part of the recruitment process, but unfortunately did not progress. That’s fine, but I have been given zero feedback, despite asking for it.
I don’t know if my work was the issue, or my grades, or my experience, or what! It’s frustrating not knowing what needs to be improved.
All too common.
I used to work in the voluntary sector, so recruitment had to follow strict policies, and I always encouraged feedback. On a few occasions I'd have loved to pass on info about really daft things people did, but they tended not to ask!
We did have one IT project, where the people applying were mostly from the private sector. We'd normally get a few dozen applications for a job as you have to put in quite a lot of effort with the forms, but this time we had over 400. I wrote to everyone and explaining exactly how many we'd had and why a lot of good candidates might not even get an interview.
Quite a few people replied to thank me as they rarely got any feedback at all, and one in particular wrote a lovely note. She'd been in London for a while and was well qualified, but was getting nowhere with applying for better jobs. She said she had no idea competition was so high, and following my email, started looking in other cities, and got a really good job straight away.
The takeaway I'd say for you, is that competition is fierce, and most of the time progressing will depend on who else applies. Asking for feedback is really important, but even then, I've seen a lot of people try to come up with "reasons" when it's often somebody much more qualified, or who they know that got appointed.
Finally, did you call for feedback, or just email? Calling may be more likely to get a response, as it's a quick 2 mins - but I wouldn't hold your breath. It may be more about persistence, and sadly in your field, making the right contacts.
People often don't bother replying to emails, whereas they usually do with phone calls and old-fashioned mail.
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Outsourcing various levels of office jobs has been tried multiple times. It always falls foul of my favourite topic - real productivity.
In terms of overall cost, it is cheaper to get code written in London that in Mumbai. I have seen the actual figures in reports.
The reason is that productivity is a function of the social and governmental infrastructure. Not just the cost of hiring a genius in Somalia.
At which point someone pipes up with "but the wages are so much less"
It is this that fuels the endless offshore-onshore-offshore cycle.
The real bomb under the middle class gravy train is - long delayed - automation revolution in the office. Essentially, a lot of jobs involve mechanistic pushing paper/spreadsheets. These are automatable.
This means that the next thing to go are non-technical middle management jobs - by the 100K.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
I’m afraid millions of people are stupid, it’s a fact of life. How anyone with an ounce of intelligence could compromise the overall health of a nation for a football team by going out and mixing in a crowd is beyond me.
Its not beyond me, maybe people don't like being caged up at home like animals.
Actually animals don't like being caged up either.
The desire to go out and socialise is a natural impulse of humanity. Its very unnatural trying to suppress that.
There are plenty of open spaces where people can exercise, even in big cities. They don't need to congregate together like this.
They don't need to socialise, they want to.
If people didn't do stuff that was a bad idea medically then smoking would have been eliminated decades ago. We've known for decades that smoking causes cancer now yet still people smoke . . . so why would you expect 100% of people to suddenly give up socialisations with no exceptions because it might pass on disease? When a fifth of the population literally absorb toxins via smoking that causes painful deadly cancers?
Many more people will die this decade from lung cancer than COVID yet still people smoke.
People don't always make smart choices. Or prioritise health above everything else. Many of those out socialising will be personally in more danger from tobacco, alcohol or illicit drugs than they are from COVID19.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
If you define Nationalism as benign - "promoting and celebrating what is good about one's own country and culture" - then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that Nationalism is benign!
But a point of order. Me and Nigel F are not quite as one on this. I draw a distinction between (1) Nationalism with the goal of creating a new sovereign state and (2) Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states.
Where imo (2) is usually malign and (1) is often not but depends on the cause and the methods.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.
Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.
He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism
Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
The upper middle classes are blissfully unaware that they are sitting on the same ticking timebomb that detonated under blue-collar Britain 50 years ago.
Outsourcing various levels of office jobs has been tried multiple times. It always falls foul of my favourite topic - real productivity.
In terms of overall cost, it is cheaper to get code written in London that in Mumbai. I have seen the actual figures in reports.
The reason is that productivity is a function of the social and governmental infrastructure. Not just the cost of hiring a genius in Somalia.
At which point someone pipes up with "but the wages are so much less"
It is this that fuels the endless offshore-onshore-offshore cycle.
The real bomb under the middle class gravy train is - long delayed - automation revolution in the office. Essentially, a lot of jobs involve mechanistic pushing paper/spreadsheets. These are automatable.
This means that the next thing to go are non-technical middle management jobs - by the 100K.
Indeed systems are being developed that can talk to each other so data is updated automatically.
When a data gatherer updates their own system, all others given permission are automatically updated at the same time. No pulling up the spreadsheet and downloading manually.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
If you define Nationalism as benign - "promoting and celebrating what is good about one's own country and culture" - then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that Nationalism is benign!
But a point of order. Me and Nigel F are not quite as one on this. I draw a distinction between (1) Nationalism with the goal of creating a new sovereign state and (2) Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states.
Where imo (2) is usually malign and (1) is often not but depends on the cause and the methods.
I'm sticking to that. I think it's palpably true.
First define nationalism and then explain how it is benign or malign.
If you define it as malign of course you are going to restrict it to being malign. But then that rules out group 1, so you can't be doing that. You're switching your definition to fit the outcome that you want.
Richard and I have both used a very clear, traditional and simple definition.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why have a ‘national’ church at all?
Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.
The whole concept is completely bonkers.
And indeed among Anglicans the religious are in a minority, most of them are in the "can't you see it's a metaphor?" camp.
Labour can surely achieve second place in Scotland by being less rubbish than Corbyn - who won seven seats - and being more popular than Johnson.
Opposing Independence will do wonders for their prospects in England and has a decent chance of becoming the Union voice again.
This is what Blair advised them to do.
Ah yes, the Loretto pupil. When master Blair was in short breeks support for independence was in single figures. He shares a huge part of the responsibility for driving it above 50%.
It’s not a matter of Starmer being less rubbish than Corbyn; you need Leonard to be less rubbish than Dugdale.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed. Technically HM is the head of Anglicanism in England, but a supporter and upholder of Calvinism in Scotland. That is mysterious ways indeed.
“ a supporter and upholder of Calvinism ”
Huh?
She toddles off to Crathie Kirk a few times a year, along with other parishioners. And has a chaplain at Holyrood/the High Kirk of St Giles. Otherwise, not much “supporting”, not much “upholding” and no “Calvinism” whatsoever.
I was referring to the ludicrous polite fiction. Not to any reality. Church of any religion and State being entwined is not one with a good record worldwide.
How very peculiar. It appears to be the "English" one, English in the sense that it has no jurisdiction in Scotland where the virus is concerned, and whose name appears in the little video in the tweet ("UK Goivernment Scotland").
But the tweet cites the website of VisotScotland, an agency of the Scottish government (and shows a photo of, I suspect, that cafe alley off Byres Road in Glasgow).
It may just be cooperation - but the dissonance at once raises questions about how reliable it is.
If one, heaven forfend, was of a cynical turn of mind, one might think that HMG is buying twitter ad space to give the impression that it has some oversight over an area of government or regulation in Scotland which it does not have.
As you appear to be on PB 24/7 I would have thought that your experiences with other posters should have demonstrated the validity or otherwise of that statement.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why have a ‘national’ church at all?
Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.
The whole concept is completely bonkers.
And indeed among Anglicans the religious are in a minority, most of them are in the "can't you see it's a metaphor?" camp.
That camp of course not being located in sub-Saharan Africa.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why have a ‘national’ church at all?
Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.
The whole concept is completely bonkers.
A system that developed as a result of a horny old man trying to get his leg over, and acquire some money, and blunder through complicated 16th century theological disputes is bonkers? Who could have seen that coming?
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders tanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.
UK: The Conservative Party The Scottish National Party Plaid Cymru
USA: The Democrats
Australia: The Liberals The Nationals The Australian Labor Party
New Zealand Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First) NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour) National
Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -
Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests
Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?
I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
I see you truncated the definition to suit.
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.
Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.
He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism
Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
Nationalism to me implies you think you are better than people from other countries which clearly you are not.
Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?
Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).
Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.
Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
Wales is not an example though.
One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.
Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I remember a curate announcing in his last sermon that he was leaving the Church of England, causing a bit of a stir, only to follow that with the explanation that he was moving to Edinburgh and so would be transferring to the Church of Scotland.
Would that, btw, have been to the Episcopalian Church of Scotland? Rather than the tout court C of S or one of its various Presbyterian offshoots? In which case the surprise would have been even less misplaced and the anecdote even btter, as the Piskies here are the sister church of the C of E and in the same Anglican communion. Bit like a bank worker moving from Nat West to RBS ... [edit: nothing implied about quality of the banks or kirks, just that it's a name change ...]
It was over twenty years ago, and you are right, I should have said the Episcopalian church. I was just not sure I could spell it...
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
If you define Nationalism as benign - "promoting and celebrating what is good about one's own country and culture" - then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that Nationalism is benign!
But a point of order. Me and Nigel F are not quite as one on this. I draw a distinction between (1) Nationalism with the goal of creating a new sovereign state and (2) Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states.
Where imo (2) is usually malign and (1) is often not but depends on the cause and the methods.
I'm sticking to that. I think it's palpably true.
No it is palpably false. The immediate example that springs to mind is Yugoslavia, where Nationalism with the aim of creating new sovereign states was combined, in Serbia and Croatia, with repugnant attitudes towards minorities and different religions which led to massacres and war.
I certainly do not believe either Brexit nor Scottish independence have anything to do with that sort of Nationalism.
What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.
It's the same argument as Brexit
Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.
It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.
Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.
(2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
Disagreed. They're the extremists.
How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?
Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common understanding of what the N word means.
You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.
Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -
Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
It would include practically every governing party in every democratic country in the world with a few exceptions. It is you and Nigel Foremain who are the extremists with your view that nationalism - promoting and celebrating what is good about ones own country and culture - is something bad and to be ashamed of.
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
If you define Nationalism as benign - "promoting and celebrating what is good about one's own country and culture" - then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that Nationalism is benign!
But a point of order. Me and Nigel F are not quite as one on this. I draw a distinction between (1) Nationalism with the goal of creating a new sovereign state and (2) Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states.
Where imo (2) is usually malign and (1) is often not but depends on the cause and the methods.
I'm sticking to that. I think it's palpably true.
No it is palpably false. The immediate example that springs to mind is Yugoslavia, where Nationalism with the aim of creating new sovereign states was combined, in Serbia and Croatia, with repugnant attitudes towards minorities and different religions which led to massacres and war.
I certainly do not believe either Brexit nor Scottish independence have anything to do with that sort of Nationalism.
You're not reading what I write. I'm saying -
(i) Nationalist movements in existing states are usually malign. Not always but usually. And I gave loads of examples.
(ii) Nationalist movements to create new states are less likely to be malign but it depends on the cause and the methods. They certainly can be malign. You give an example of one that was (Yugoslavia) and one that isn't (SNP). I agree in both cases.
I also agree that Brexit - whilst animated in certain quarters by nationalism of the malign type - cannot in any sense be compared with what happened in Yugoslavia.
Re Mask Wearing - I note that Countries that have far far higher mask wearing percentage than we do are seeing a big rise in cases eg Japan, Spain.
Mask wearing is a response to the increase in cases not a cause.
Yes - many of the outbreaks are happening where there has not been mask use - in bars/clubs, etc or in family reunions, weddings, etc. Also some outbreaks among agricultural workers.
Be thankful you are not in the UK - 80% of the great British public are too bloody minded/selfish/ ignorant/lazy to put a mask on and I doubt that will significantly change tomorrow in those places where it becomes mandatory. We are headed for a second lock-down guaranteed.
Look at the attitude of the Brits on holiday in Spain, that is how it is here all the time.
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
"The Conservative Party’s finances came under renewed scrutiny last night as it emerged that two of its MPs on the intelligence watchdog committee and 14 ministers had accepted donations linked to Russia.
Electoral Commission records show that six members of the cabinet and eight junior ministers received tens of thousands of pounds from individuals or businesses with links to Russia. The donations were made either to them or their constituency parties."
Looks like Dirty Marcelo Biesla's sexy football playing Leeds have ruined it for everybody.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
No shit Sherlock, it has been plan all along for the clowns, just make unreasonable demands and try to blame it on EU.
What is unreasonable about the U.K. position on fishing and on dynamic level playing field regulations?
Both sides professing astonishment and confusion at what the other is offering or not compromising on is extremely false and tedious. I would find it hard to work in an environment where I'd have to constantly repeat such nonsense.
I only do that on my free time.
Darn you! Now there’s no chance of @malcolmg coming up with a thoughtful and reasoned response...
@Charles The one certain thing Charles is that the Tories will happily sell out Scotland , we will be first overboard.
Re Mask Wearing - I note that Countries that have far far higher mask wearing percentage than we do are seeing a big rise in cases eg Japan, Spain.
Mask wearing is a response to the increase in cases not a cause.
Yes - many of the outbreaks are happening where there has not been mask use - in bars/clubs, etc or in family reunions, weddings, etc. Also some outbreaks among agricultural workers.
Be thankful you are not in the UK - 80% of the great British public are too bloody minded/selfish/ ignorant/lazy to put a mask on and I doubt that will significantly change tomorrow in those places where it becomes mandatory. We are headed for a second lock-down guaranteed.
Look at the attitude of the Brits on holiday in Spain, that is how it is here all the time.
More than a week ago 36%already said they would wear a mask.
Comments
Opposing Independence will do wonders for their prospects in England and has a decent chance of becoming the Union voice again.
This is what Blair advised them to do.
The trial of doing without all this from 1649-1660 failed.
No-one has tried seriously (in England) to change it since. I suggest leaving well alone is best.
BTW the C o E is a national church. England is a nation, but of course not a state. The UK is a state.
But yep, you continually look at the big picture and miss out the detail. And it's detail that kills you oh such as tariffs which will mean any exports to the EU are suddenly 10% (say) more expensive
"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.
So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.
Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
https://www.change.org/p/croydon-council-keep-the-churchill-mural-in-croydon?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_22726705_en-GB:3&recruiter=1114455511&recruited_by_id=d9b701d0-ab0f-11ea-9853-85f7a8ed16fa&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial
Have a word with Croydon Labour would you
https://www.change.org/p/democratic-socialists-creation-of-a-new-democratic-socialist-party?source_location=community_footer&algorithm=promoted&original_footer_petition_id=22726705&grid_position=4&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAO6rWQEAAAAAXxl9UjuGPjMwYTRlMGVkNg==
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/22/home-working-revolution-will-derail-middle-class-gravy-train/
Valencia, prepared for a second wave. The Minister of Universal Health, Ana Barceló, has guaranteed that the Valencian Community is prepared for a possible second wave of the coronavirus, with reinforcement of personnel, beds, trackers and material for six months. "I hope that this system does not have to enter and all the outbreaks are encapsulated and controlled," he said in Les Corts.
Murcia: More details about Totana. The entry and exit of the municipality, of about 30,000 inhabitants, is prohibited. Day centers are closed and residence visits are restricted, while their health centers will be closed, except for care related to the coronavirus pandemic.
13:04 In Totana there have been 55 cases of coronavirus associated with attending nightclubs. The Minister of Health of Murcia, Manuel Villegas, has made a special appeal to the Latin American community based in the region, which brings together 60% of infections by Covid-19.
Though the drop in sterling since the referendum is more than that so our exporters should be finding themselves in a competitive position to export even with tariffs.
Tariffs don't stop the Chinese from exporting to us do they?
On the flipside though, if the work is non-trivial it is often better paying the premium of having someone local. I (and other IT professionals) have often made money correcting or replacing the "cheap version" of a corporate project.
Doesn’t sound very appealing!
Its more like home working revolution will derail commuting and South East of England property market.
Barbados is considering a 1-year visa for laptop workers to replace the tourist trade, I read.
Right now we have one working remote from the Balearics, and one from Yorkshire.
I only do that on my free time.
https://twitter.com/GOVUK/status/1280871273351000064?s=20
I suspect lots of English people are fairly content with the compromise which gives HM the Queen a unique position, being both sacred and secular (which she has combined with brilliance), and at the same time gives every person (of all religions and none by the way) access to the Church of England as of right simply by virtue of living here, and doesn't ask the taxpayer to pay for it. What's not to like?
Equating nationalism in democratic countries with the extremists like Le Pen or with fascism is like equating the Labour movement under Starmer or Blair (or practically any post war Labour leader) with the extremist socialist movement in Venezuela. It is lazy, ignorant and plain wrong.
Average WTO tariff under 2%. Meetings held across the world with engineers and buyers, hundreds; times anyone has mentioned trade deals or tariffs, never. Not once.
Not saying it applies universally, we sell engineering stuff not cows, or fruit, or cars, but it can be done.
Liverpool and Leeds celebrations could set back fans' return to stadiums
Exclusive: Football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season
Plans to allow crowds back into football grounds have been thrown into doubt following the repeated refusal of Liverpool and Leeds United fans to adhere to coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Telegraph Sport can reveal football safety officers are opposed to proposals that would see a limited number of spectators attend matches next season – a view that has been compounded by the scenes at Anfield and Elland Road on Wednesday night.
Thousands of Liverpool and Leeds fans once again ignored instructions to stay at home as the clubs lifted the Premier League and Championship titles, respectively, casting major doubt over whether supporters could be trusted to observe strict social distancing protocols during games.
John Newsham, a consultant for the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA), said a significant number of fans had shown “they can’t follow guidelines from clubs”.
He added: “The season should start again behind closed doors as it’s finished, until such a time that Boris [Johnson] says you can have your capacity fans back into your grounds now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/23/liverpool-leeds-celebrations-could-set-back-fans-return-stadiums/
But the tweet cites the website of VisotScotland, an agency of the Scottish government (and shows a photo of, I suspect, that cafe alley off Byres Road in Glasgow).
It may just be cooperation - but the dissonance at once raises questions about how reliable it is.
Electoral Commission records show that six members of the cabinet and eight junior ministers received tens of thousands of pounds from individuals or businesses with links to Russia. The donations were made either to them or their constituency parties."
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/conservative-party-ministers-bankrolled-by-donors-linked-to-russia-2hm5jhwpx
Mitchell's death means that Robert Lindsay is the last surviving member of parliament elected at the 1955 General Election.
Power to the people!
Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.
The whole concept is completely bonkers.
Actually animals don't like being caged up either.
The desire to go out and socialise is a natural impulse of humanity. Its very unnatural trying to suppress that.
Huh?
She toddles off to Crathie Kirk a few times a year, along with other parishioners. And has a chaplain at Holyrood/the High Kirk of St Giles. Otherwise, not much “supporting”, not much “upholding” and no “Calvinism” whatsoever.
In terms of overall cost, it is cheaper to get code written in London that in Mumbai. I have seen the actual figures in reports.
The reason is that productivity is a function of the social and governmental infrastructure. Not just the cost of hiring a genius in Somalia.
At which point someone pipes up with "but the wages are so much less"
It is this that fuels the endless offshore-onshore-offshore cycle.
The real bomb under the middle class gravy train is - long delayed - automation revolution in the office. Essentially, a lot of jobs involve mechanistic pushing paper/spreadsheets. These are automatable.
This means that the next thing to go are non-technical middle management jobs - by the 100K.
If people didn't do stuff that was a bad idea medically then smoking would have been eliminated decades ago. We've known for decades that smoking causes cancer now yet still people smoke . . . so why would you expect 100% of people to suddenly give up socialisations with no exceptions because it might pass on disease? When a fifth of the population literally absorb toxins via smoking that causes painful deadly cancers?
Many more people will die this decade from lung cancer than COVID yet still people smoke.
People don't always make smart choices. Or prioritise health above everything else. Many of those out socialising will be personally in more danger from tobacco, alcohol or illicit drugs than they are from COVID19.
But a point of order. Me and Nigel F are not quite as one on this. I draw a distinction between (1) Nationalism with the goal of creating a new sovereign state and (2) Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states.
Where imo (2) is usually malign and (1) is often not but depends on the cause and the methods.
I'm sticking to that. I think it's palpably true.
He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism
Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
MoT.
When a data gatherer updates their own system, all others given permission are automatically updated at the same time. No pulling up the spreadsheet and downloading manually.
If you define it as malign of course you are going to restrict it to being malign. But then that rules out group 1, so you can't be doing that. You're switching your definition to fit the outcome that you want.
Richard and I have both used a very clear, traditional and simple definition.
It’s not a matter of Starmer being less rubbish than Corbyn; you need Leonard to be less rubbish than Dugdale.
Headline - 19
7 days - 9 - lots of backdating
Yesterday - 1
expired
Any view on why it has ' UK Government Scotland' stamped on it?
I certainly do not believe either Brexit nor Scottish independence have anything to do with that sort of Nationalism.
(i) Nationalist movements in existing states are usually malign. Not always but usually. And I gave loads of examples.
(ii) Nationalist movements to create new states are less likely to be malign but it depends on the cause and the methods. They certainly can be malign. You give an example of one that was (Yugoslavia) and one that isn't (SNP). I agree in both cases.
I also agree that Brexit - whilst animated in certain quarters by nationalism of the malign type - cannot in any sense be compared with what happened in Yugoslavia.
Look at the attitude of the Brits on holiday in Spain, that is how it is here all the time.
Brian Clough lives!
Give it a little time.