What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
Yet again irrelevant, every nation in history has only been cobbled together out of different composite regions and areas, including Scotland itself which was only created by bringing together Pictland, part of Northumbria and Dal Riata.
Scots themselves voted 55% to stay in the Union in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Okay. Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, can we better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.
Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”.
The language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.
Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, and not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. Or feelings that are parked after a once in generation vote. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”
Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.
So what would you do in their situation?
How well argued. Imagine if "Madrid" "controlled" "Barcelona" from an office block, or if Catalan predated Spanish (do you mean Castilian?) only geographically or ethically rather than historically.
If you knew anything about Catalonia you'd know it's one of the richest parts of Spain that is in no way subject to a Castilian "jackboot"; that Catalan independence is mainly supported in the richer part of the population who don't want to subsidise the rest of Spain; and that a majority oppose full independence.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
Yet again irrelevant, every nation in history has only been cobbled together out of different composite regions and areas, including Scotland itself which was only created by bringing together Pictland, part of Northumbria and Dal Riata.
Scots themselves voted 55% to stay in the Union in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Okay. Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, can we better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.
Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”.
The language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.
Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, and not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. Or feelings that are parked after a once in generation vote. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”
Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.
So what would you do in their situation?
We faced the same with the IRA, as with Madrid I would not give in to terrorism
Except when it's a loyalist enclave in NI battling the rising green tide with Armalite and Semtex. You'd positively support that.
Have a look at the UKIP stats in Scotland and at SNP policy on who gets Scottish passports - not to mention who gets to live in Sciotland at all.
The SNP{ aren't the ones who scream and shout at other Europeans sitting in Holyrood. Or in Westminster. Hell, the Tories scream and shout at Scots sitting in Westminster.
Gotta say TSE, with the exception of some of the older school nutters, the SNP are much much less nativist than the Tory part.
You obviously have not encountered the cybernats
Now Trump's toast, who's going to be your populist nationalist poster boy?
I always said I would have voted for Biden but GOP for Congress and I voted Remain, the only nationalist amongst the 2 of us is you and your fellow English hating, ranting, Bannockburn obsessing, saltire waving, whinging, bitter Scottish nationalists!!!
That told them 😁
But in the interests of balance though, If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?
But nations need to keep their identity, their culture, their democracy, and where these are smothered by any union with other nations, with so much surrender of your sovereignty into the pool, so some far away government, speaking a language other than your own, now rules over you, you vote and everything stays the same, building up your desire to take back control - something has got to change hasn’t it?
Are you saying that feeling just made up? Got up by scoundrels? It’s not really real? That there is no excuse to feel that?
Great post. That is why I am an English supporter of Scottish Independence. For entirely positive and well meant reasons.
Thank you. 🙂
Would it be best then to have a conscious decoupling, like via a Royal Commission. So as not to throw out with the change cooperation that really is helpful win win?
No as Scots voted against independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
And Brexit doesn’t change that? the desire of majority of English and Welsh, those original Roman Britons, to brexit, can’t have the same powerful Brexit arguments to escape from vassalage, to take back sovereignty and control, turned back upon them in ScotRef2 now because of brexit?
No, Cameron had said he would hold an EUref even before the indyref in 2014, it was a once in a generation referendum and that will stand.
Plus the prospect of a hard border with England still keeps Scots behind the Union post Brexit
I’m sure you agree with Richard and myself, just don’t realise it. It hinges upon understanding what a nation actually is. 🙂
Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language?
Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders?
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights?
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate?
The UK is older as a nation than Germany, Italy, India, the USA, Canada and Australia, all of them manage to be effective union of states and so can we, otherwise on your absurd argument they should all dissolve too
What made Italy? Nationalism. What made India? Nationalism. What made Germany? Nationalism.
At time of the 1789 French Revolution only half of the French people spoke some French, the state made the French nation not a French nationalism. During the Italian unification the % of people speaking the Italian language was even lower. To the creation of Germany following the Austro Prussian war, all those people with different languages and culture who didn’t wish to be part of Germany, the Schleswig-Holstein question that clearly proves a nation did not exist before the German state.
Is British a Nationalism?
It's pretty difficult to tell how widespread the sentiment was in those times, and using language as a proxy for that sentiment brings even more problems to the table, probably more than it solves. However, it's not really my point. The idea that the coalescing of the Sicilies, and the Papal States, and Lombardy, etc into a single "Italy" was a nationalist idea. It is one that was successfully implemented, for good or for ill. Nationalism made Italy. Did all "Italians" speak the same languages? No, not at all. Was there a popular sentiment for a nation state? Difficult to say, but let's say no for sake of argument. Nevertheless, it happened. The beliefs of the common people, the great majority who didn't have a political say and didn't participate one way or another aren't what counts here -- they should have done, but these were not democracies. The French revolution was (to begin with, the 1789 edition) a liberal revolution against absolutist monarchy. The change for the French state from absolutist to liberal state with successive constitutions reflects the change in the organisation of political power. That's all we're talking about here. Whether or not the popular will followed, lead, recoiled, or stayed indifferent is an interesting but separate question. And so in Italy. Risorgimento was a nationalism movement, lead by nationalists, to create a state that reflected their idea of a nation. I don't make any claims about the prior existence of subjective or objective nationality among the peasantry of the day.
So how do you answer my questions? I’m seriously interested to read them answered by an eloquent defender of that certain type of contrived Nationalism.
Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language?
Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders?
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights?
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate?
My opinions only, others will take their own view:
-Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language? Yes
-Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders? Yes
-Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture? No borders, but nation states obviously can have borders. Nobody has to feel they belong to a nation just because they live in the state.
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world? For practical reasons, it will probably be the same franchise as happened in 2014: 16+ EU citizens who are normally resident in Scotland. I see much to commend that choice, and little to worry about if that is the case.
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights? This is a very difficult question. I don't think we should demand much by way of duties from our neighbours. Even some level of law-breaking is tolerable if we're going down the route of talking about deportation. That is to say, if someone is a migrant, deportation shouldn't be a sword of Damocles hanging over every move the migrant makes. It creates perverse incentives. In short, I'm pretty hostile to the concept of assimilation; I'm a liberal.
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate? I don't know. I'm not arguing for nations or new states, per se. I'm just saying it's a normal state of affairs, and it both creates and solves major problems.
This is probably not the defence of nationalism you wanted. There's no denying the great evils nationalism has unleashed, but it would be equally foolish to deny the great evils that anti-nationalism has unleashed, too. This includes colonialism and repression of minority national groups within multi-national states. I think anyone whose theory of everything includes "nationalism is good" or "nationalism is bad", is probably missing a whole perspective that would be obvious to them if they had a little more history under their belts.
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
You're such an obvious troll. Everyone who is as interested in nationality as you purport to be, regardless of their take on it, or on instances of it, is aware that of course a nation is a cultural construct and not a physical item that has a border.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
You write as if the battle of Culloden pitted England against Scotland, which is just hooey even if you can cite a song to prove the existence of opposition in England a couple of centuries ago, among Hanoverians, to those among the Scots who were "rebels". Big deal.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
If many on both sides of the border believe they belong to a country called Britain that includes England and Scotland then it does exist. For them. That's how national identity works. Yes, it's an illusion, or a cultural construct, but so it is for every nation, including Scotland. You can't prove otherwise with reference to some masque written in the 18th century about a 9th century Saxon king.
Several of your premises are crazed, e.g. Scotland as a "vassal state of England", and when reflected in a mirror they give an image of a crazed English counterpart (funnily enough perhaps he's dressed as a Crusader) who believes Edinburgh belongs to England because it used to be Edwin's Burgh and can cite as evidence what Edwin's men had for breakfast in Northumbria in the 7th century and how it didn't include oats.
Live in the real world, mate. Of course Scottish figures played a major role in what is called the British Empire - commanding army regiments, owning slaves, planting the Union Jack around the world, the lot of it.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
Yet again irrelevant, every nation in history has only been cobbled together out of different composite regions and areas, including Scotland itself which was only created by bringing together Pictland, part of Northumbria and Dal Riata.
Scots themselves voted 55% to stay in the Union in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Okay. Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, can we better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.
Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”.
The language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.
Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, and not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. Or feelings that are parked after a once in generation vote. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”
Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.
So what would you do in their situation?
How well argued. Imagine if "Madrid" "controlled" "Barcelona" from an office block, or if Catalan predated Spanish (do you mean Castilian?) only geographically or ethically rather than historically.
If you knew anything about Catalonia you'd know it's one of the richest parts of Spain that is in no way subject to a Castilian "jackboot"; that Catalan independence is mainly supported in the richer part of the population who don't want to subsidise the rest of Spain; and that a majority oppose full independence.
it's a little more complex than that. Some older people remember life under Franco and have no affiliation with the country because of that. Some younger people have felt the pace of progress on social liberties, such as gay rights, to be too slow under PP-dominated governments and turned to Catalan separatism as a reaction. Some feel angry at the shenanigans of the constitutional court and would have settled for greater autonomy within Spain but given up on that. Some think they will be richer if they cut loose. Some just hate folks from Other Parts. You can't boil it down to any one of those things, there's a lot going on in Catalan nationalism.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
Yet again irrelevant, every nation in history has only been cobbled together out of different composite regions and areas, including Scotland itself which was only created by bringing together Pictland, part of Northumbria and Dal Riata.
Scots themselves voted 55% to stay in the Union in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Okay. Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, can we better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.
Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”.
The language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.
Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, and not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. Or feelings that are parked after a once in generation vote. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”
Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.
So what would you do in their situation?
We faced the same with the IRA, as with Madrid I would not give in to terrorism
Except when it's a loyalist enclave in NI battling the rising green tide with Armalite and Semtex. You'd positively support that.
If HYUFD can handle a weapon and brings his own we'll take him in, no hesitation.
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
You're such an obvious troll. Everyone who is as interested in nationality as you purport to be, regardless of their take on it, or on instances of it, is aware that of course a nation is a cultural construct and not a physical item that has a border.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
You write as if the battle of Culloden pitted England against Scotland, which is just hooey even if you can cite a song to prove the existence of opposition in England a couple of centuries ago, among Hanoverians, to those among the Scots who were "rebels". Big deal.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
If many on both sides of the border believe they belong to a country called Britain that includes England and Scotland then it does exist. For them. That's how national identity works. Yes, it's an illusion, or a cultural construct, but so it is for every nation, including Scotland. You can't prove otherwise with reference to some masque written in the 18th century about a 9th century Saxon king.
Several of your premises are crazed, e.g. Scotland as a "vassal state of England", and when reflected in a mirror they give an image of a crazed English counterpart (funnily enough perhaps he's dressed as a Crusader) who believes Edinburgh belongs to England because it used to be Edwin's Burgh and can cite as evidence what Edwin's men had for breakfast in Northumbria in the 7th century and how it didn't include oats.
Live in the real world, mate. Of course Scottish figures played a major role in what is called the British Empire - commanding army regiments, owning slaves, planting the Union Jack around the world, the lot of it.
Quite right too, well done Alister Jack, a generation means precisely that
We tend to be in broad agreement on the Independence issue , but I cannot accept that a further 25 to 40 years is reasonable. We are already over 6 years beyond the 2014 Referendum and whilst I see a further Referendum within the next few years as being contrary to the spirit of the last vote, I would not oppose another vote post 2035 should Scotland want that.
The abiding question is, though, what if there was a settled and obvious will for a new referendum in Scotland in 2021? As I recall, the referendum was on Scotland becoming an independent country, and the question of there being a new referendum (or not) was not decided at all by voters that day.
In the absence of a 75% plus turnout for Holyrood I will remain unpersuaded.
Well, your levels of persuasion notwithstanding, you can't count those who refuse to exercise their voting rights in either column. And it doesn't strike me as a very confident stance. But even then, it still pushes the question to a different peg, just as loose as the other. The 2014 referendum was not "no to independence, and no further referendum unless X% turnout with Y% points majority". It was "no to independence". The 2014 referendum gave a mandate for exactly one thing, and that thing has been and is to this day delivered. Everything else you think was on the ballot paper is debate-club chaff. In democracies, things like this are decided at the ballot box.
Have a look at the UKIP stats in Scotland and at SNP policy on who gets Scottish passports - not to mention who gets to live in Sciotland at all.
The SNP{ aren't the ones who scream and shout at other Europeans sitting in Holyrood. Or in Westminster. Hell, the Tories scream and shout at Scots sitting in Westminster.
Gotta say TSE, with the exception of some of the older school nutters, the SNP are much much less nativist than the Tory part.
You obviously have not encountered the cybernats
Now Trump's toast, who's going to be your populist nationalist poster boy?
I always said I would have voted for Biden but GOP for Congress and I voted Remain, the only nationalist amongst the 2 of us is you and your fellow English hating, ranting, Bannockburn obsessing, saltire waving, whinging, bitter Scottish nationalists!!!
That told them 😁
But in the interests of balance though, If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?
But nations need to keep their identity, their culture, their democracy, and where these are smothered by any union with other nations, with so much surrender of your sovereignty into the pool, so some far away government, speaking a language other than your own, now rules over you, you vote and everything stays the same, building up your desire to take back control - something has got to change hasn’t it?
Are you saying that feeling just made up? Got up by scoundrels? It’s not really real? That there is no excuse to feel that?
Great post. That is why I am an English supporter of Scottish Independence. For entirely positive and well meant reasons.
Thank you. 🙂
Would it be best then to have a conscious decoupling, like via a Royal Commission. So as not to throw out with the change cooperation that really is helpful win win?
No as Scots voted against independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
And Brexit doesn’t change that? the desire of majority of English and Welsh, those original Roman Britons, to brexit, can’t have the same powerful Brexit arguments to escape from vassalage, to take back sovereignty and control, turned back upon them in ScotRef2 now because of brexit?
No, Cameron had said he would hold an EUref even before the indyref in 2014, it was a once in a generation referendum and that will stand.
Plus the prospect of a hard border with England still keeps Scots behind the Union post Brexit
I’m sure you agree with Richard and myself, just don’t realise it. It hinges upon understanding what a nation actually is. 🙂
Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language?
Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders?
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights?
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate?
The UK is older as a nation than Germany, Italy, India, the USA, Canada and Australia, all of them manage to be effective union of states and so can we, otherwise on your absurd argument they should all dissolve too
What made Italy? Nationalism. What made India? Nationalism. What made Germany? Nationalism.
At time of the 1789 French Revolution only half of the French people spoke some French, the state made the French nation not a French nationalism. During the Italian unification the % of people speaking the Italian language was even lower. To the creation of Germany following the Austro Prussian war, all those people with different languages and culture who didn’t wish to be part of Germany, the Schleswig-Holstein question that clearly proves a nation did not exist before the German state.
Is British a Nationalism?
It's pretty difficult to tell how widespread the sentiment was in those times, and using language as a proxy for that sentiment brings even more problems to the table, probably more than it solves. However, it's not really my point. The idea that the coalescing of the Sicilies, and the Papal States, and Lombardy, etc into a single "Italy" was a nationalist idea. It is one that was successfully implemented, for good or for ill. Nationalism made Italy. Did all "Italians" speak the same languages? No, not at all. Was there a popular sentiment for a nation state? Difficult to say, but let's say no for sake of argument. Nevertheless, it happened. The beliefs of the common people, the great majority who didn't have a political say and didn't participate one way or another aren't what counts here -- they should have done, but these were not democracies. The French revolution was (to begin with, the 1789 edition) a liberal revolution against absolutist monarchy. The change for the French state from absolutist to liberal state with successive constitutions reflects the change in the organisation of political power. That's all we're talking about here. Whether or not the popular will followed, lead, recoiled, or stayed indifferent is an interesting but separate question. And so in Italy. Risorgimento was a nationalism movement, lead by nationalists, to create a state that reflected their idea of a nation. I don't make any claims about the prior existence of subjective or objective nationality among the peasantry of the day.
So how do you answer my questions? I’m seriously interested to read them answered by an eloquent defender of that certain type of contrived Nationalism.
Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language?
Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders?
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights?
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate?
My opinions only, others will take their own view:
-Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language? Yes
-Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders? Yes
-Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture? No borders, but nation states obviously can have borders. Nobody has to feel they belong to a nation just because they live in the state.
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world? For practical reasons, it will probably be the same franchise as happened in 2014: 16+ EU citizens who are normally resident in Scotland. I see much to commend that choice, and little to worry about if that is the case.
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights? This is a very difficult question. I don't think we should demand much by way of duties from our neighbours. Even some level of law-breaking is tolerable if we're going down the route of talking about deportation. That is to say, if someone is a migrant, deportation shouldn't be a sword of Damocles hanging over every move the migrant makes. It creates perverse incentives. In short, I'm pretty hostile to the concept of assimilation; I'm a liberal.
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate? I don't know. I'm not arguing for nations or new states, per se. I'm just saying it's a normal state of affairs, and it both creates and solves major problems.
This is probably not the defence of nationalism you wanted. There's no denying the great evils nationalism has unleashed, but it would be equally foolish to deny the great evils that anti-nationalism has unleashed, too. This includes colonialism and repression of minority national groups within multi-national states. I think anyone whose theory of everything includes "nationalism is good" or "nationalism is bad", is probably missing a whole perspective that would be obvious to them if they had a little more history under their belts.
"Maybe what was going on right now was best for the country. If Donald Trump had won, the Left would have burned down the cities. If Joe Biden had won decisively and flipped the Senate, conservatives would have loaded the guns into their pickup trucks and laid siege. Maybe I would have confronted JT, pointed out that she’d really let herself go. But instead, everyone got a little something. And everyone was a little disappointed."
I will honestly never understand why other English folk on this site have a view on Scottish independence. Surely, logically, it’s for the Scots to decide and none of my business. Let’s take each Scottish Parliament majority as a mandate if the relevant parties wish.
I wanted (and want) to leave the EU; I don’t give a toss what the French think. Same thing for the Scots in microcosm. The Union only means anything if the people of each nation wish it to. Either the Scottish accept that the vote of one person in Scotland is the same as the vote of one person in Leicester or they don’t. If they don’t, and they want to act as an individual nation then that’s their choice.
At the point they choose to leave the union I would expect rUK negotiations to be harsh, but that’s life. It’s their choice, not mine.
It's difficult. This is someone who desperately needs psychiatric help. But he is president of the USA and doesn't want to accept it. What to do?
It would be fun if he did that but no, it's a performance. He'll keep saying things like this until such time as his fans stop sending him money to keep saying them, that doesn't mean he fancies his odds against the Secret Service.
It's difficult. This is someone who desperately needs psychiatric help. But he is president of the USA and doesn't want to accept it. What to do?
It would be fun if he did that but no, it's a performance. He'll keep saying things like this until such time as his fans stop sending him money to keep saying them, that doesn't mean he fancies his odds against the Secret Service.
In some ways I think he’ll enjoy being “king over the water” and “I was robbed” leader of the opposition on TV more than being President.
Trump would need about 62% of remaining vote to get it. This is like watching an ODI where a team needed 3.5 per over and were only getting 3. But now they need 12 per over and only getting 3 still. The required run rate is just going to keep ramping up.
"Maybe what was going on right now was best for the country. If Donald Trump had won, the Left would have burned down the cities. If Joe Biden had won decisively and flipped the Senate, conservatives would have loaded the guns into their pickup trucks and laid siege. Maybe I would have confronted JT, pointed out that she’d really let herself go. But instead, everyone got a little something. And everyone was a little disappointed."
"Maybe what was going on right now was best for the country. If Donald Trump had won, the Left would have burned down the cities. If Joe Biden had won decisively and flipped the Senate, conservatives would have loaded the guns into their pickup trucks and laid siege. Maybe I would have confronted JT, pointed out that she’d really let herself go. But instead, everyone got a little something. And everyone was a little disappointed."
"Maybe what was going on right now was best for the country. If Donald Trump had won, the Left would have burned down the cities. If Joe Biden had won decisively and flipped the Senate, conservatives would have loaded the guns into their pickup trucks and laid siege. Maybe I would have confronted JT, pointed out that she’d really let herself go. But instead, everyone got a little something. And everyone was a little disappointed."
Quite right too, well done Alister Jack, a generation means precisely that
We tend to be in broad agreement on the Independence issue , but I cannot accept that a further 25 to 40 years is reasonable. We are already over 6 years beyond the 2014 Referendum and whilst I see a further Referendum within the next few years as being contrary to the spirit of the last vote, I would not oppose another vote post 2035 should Scotland want that.
The abiding question is, though, what if there was a settled and obvious will for a new referendum in Scotland in 2021? As I recall, the referendum was on Scotland becoming an independent country, and the question of there being a new referendum (or not) was not decided at all by voters that day.
In the absence of a 75% plus turnout for Holyrood I will remain unpersuaded.
Well, your levels of persuasion notwithstanding, you can't count those who refuse to exercise their voting rights in either column. And it doesn't strike me as a very confident stance. But even then, it still pushes the question to a different peg, just as loose as the other. The 2014 referendum was not "no to independence, and no further referendum unless X% turnout with Y% points majority". It was "no to independence". The 2014 referendum gave a mandate for exactly one thing, and that thing has been and is to this day delivered. Everything else you think was on the ballot paper is debate-club chaff. In democracies, things like this are decided at the ballot box.
A decision was made at the ballot box in September 2014.How often should the same question be revisited? Every 6 months until the desired answer is obtained? An election which generates a circa 50% turnout hardly represents 'the clear and settled will' on any issue - whether desire for a further Referendum or anything else.Moreover, the failure to turn out could well indicate that a big chunk of the electorate effectively want little to do with Holyrood and attaches little importance to its deliberations. Why do so many more vote at Westminster elections?
Areas that suffered most bomb damage during the Blitz suffer more child deprivation today and even more Covid-19 deaths, according to new research.
He says it is also a reminder of how "geographically concentrated" the Blitz was and that the damage was not "shared out" across the country, with those in poorer, crowded housing often suffering the most.
The disadvantage in such places now, Prof Todman says is not the legacy of the war, but more a sign that the post-war settlement failed to "bring places up" and those "inequalities continue to exist". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54834759
Joe Biden is 1.04 on Betfair to win the election, as are the Democrats. I'm afraid I've forgotten which PBer recommended the ECV handicap but there is £100-ish available at 1.1 for Biden -48.5 (although when playing at these short prices, you should ask when the bet will be settled, how long you will be tying up your stake).
Republicans for Biden will win it in Arizona for Biden; generic GOP dog catchers are on 50% in Maricopa. If they hadn't run McSally twice in a row they might have had a better shot at the senate too
Areas that suffered most bomb damage during the Blitz suffer more child deprivation today and even more Covid-19 deaths, according to new research.
He says it is also a reminder of how "geographically concentrated" the Blitz was and that the damage was not "shared out" across the country, with those in poorer, crowded housing often suffering the most.
The disadvantage in such places now, Prof Todman says is not the legacy of the war, but more a sign that the post-war settlement failed to "bring places up" and those "inequalities continue to exist". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54834759
Interesting although not a big surprise. Places like Bermondsey and East Ham were bombed a lot and are still poor areas today.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
Yet again irrelevant, every nation in history has only been cobbled together out of different composite regions and areas, including Scotland itself which was only created by bringing together Pictland, part of Northumbria and Dal Riata.
Scots themselves voted 55% to stay in the Union in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Okay. Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, can we better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.
Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”.
The language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.
Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, and not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. Or feelings that are parked after a once in generation vote. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”
Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.
So what would you do in their situation?
We faced the same with the IRA, as with Madrid I would not give in to terrorism
Except when it's a loyalist enclave in NI battling the rising green tide with Armalite and Semtex. You'd positively support that.
If HYUFD can handle a weapon and brings his own we'll take him in, no hesitation.
I've no doubt that HYUFD can handle his own weapon.
Areas that suffered most bomb damage during the Blitz suffer more child deprivation today and even more Covid-19 deaths, according to new research.
He says it is also a reminder of how "geographically concentrated" the Blitz was and that the damage was not "shared out" across the country, with those in poorer, crowded housing often suffering the most.
The disadvantage in such places now, Prof Todman says is not the legacy of the war, but more a sign that the post-war settlement failed to "bring places up" and those "inequalities continue to exist". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54834759
Interesting although not a big surprise. Places like Bermondsey and East Ham were bombed a lot and are still poor areas today.
Bermondsey is not a poor area! Average house prices in 2018 were £531k vs £232k nationally and median FT earnings £39k vs £29k
Poor RCP has been in meltdown for the last week even before polling closed, and today their conservative lead article is openly calling for Republican state houses to nullify Democrat wins by appointing Republican electors!
Fair and balanced. I thi k finally people might agree that RCP is not a neutral poll aggregator?
Yes, miraculous, that when you haven't finished counting the votes, the amounts then change. I'd say he was just shit stirring, but I think he genuinely believes is.
Whether or not he does is probably the wrong question.
I think this is probably the most accurate description of where Trump is at. This doesn’t end after Biden is in the White House https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trumps-forever-campaign-is-just-getting-started/617021/ ... Again, this is a carefully planned strategy, not a temper tantrum, and it may have several stages. The first could take the form of a Hail Mary pass, a brazen and illegal attempt to stay in office. As my colleague Barton Gellman has written, both the rhetoric and the flurry of ridiculous lawsuits are intended to create a misleading impression of electoral fraud so deep that some Republican state legislators could even be tempted to ignore the ballots and simply appoint an Electoral College delegation to vote for Trump. The head of the Pennsylvania Republican Party mentioned this as one of his “options,” although the Republican majority leader of the state Senate explicitly shot that idea down.
But even if Trump’s Hail Mary pass quickly fizzles, even if his attempt to stay in the White House is drowned out by the reality of the vote count and a tsunami of “Biden won” headlines, that doesn’t mean Trump will admit that the election was fair—ever. Even if Trump is forced to make a grudging concession speech, even if Biden is sworn in as president on January 20, even if the Trump family is forced to pack its Louis Vuitton suitcases and flee to Mar-a-Lago, it is in Trump’s interest, and a part of the Republican Party’s interest, to maintain the fiction that the election was stolen. That’s because the same base, the base that distrusts American democracy, could still be extremely useful to Trump, as well as to the Republican Party, in years to come....
Quite right too, well done Alister Jack, a generation means precisely that
We tend to be in broad agreement on the Independence issue , but I cannot accept that a further 25 to 40 years is reasonable. We are already over 6 years beyond the 2014 Referendum and whilst I see a further Referendum within the next few years as being contrary to the spirit of the last vote, I would not oppose another vote post 2035 should Scotland want that.
The abiding question is, though, what if there was a settled and obvious will for a new referendum in Scotland in 2021? As I recall, the referendum was on Scotland becoming an independent country, and the question of there being a new referendum (or not) was not decided at all by voters that day.
In the absence of a 75% plus turnout for Holyrood I will remain unpersuaded.
Well, your levels of persuasion notwithstanding, you can't count those who refuse to exercise their voting rights in either column. And it doesn't strike me as a very confident stance. But even then, it still pushes the question to a different peg, just as loose as the other. The 2014 referendum was not "no to independence, and no further referendum unless X% turnout with Y% points majority". It was "no to independence". The 2014 referendum gave a mandate for exactly one thing, and that thing has been and is to this day delivered. Everything else you think was on the ballot paper is debate-club chaff. In democracies, things like this are decided at the ballot box.
A decision was made at the ballot box in September 2014.How often should the same question be revisited? Every 6 months until the desired answer is obtained? An election which generates a circa 50% turnout hardly represents 'the clear and settled will' on any issue - whether desire for a further Referendum or anything else.Moreover, the failure to turn out could well indicate that a big chunk of the electorate effectively want little to do with Holyrood and attaches little importance to its deliberations. Why do so many more vote at Westminster elections?
The trouble is, the SNP won a thumping majority of seats in the Westminster election. So by your metric, there's already a firm mandate. But once again, you cannot divine the meaning of someone staying away from voting. You can put forward an interpretation and it will obviously be right for a PORTION of those who didn't vote. I could come up with an alternative explanation and suggest that people don't vote because they don't mind either way which party wins. And I would also be right for a PORTION of those who didn't vote.
What we can't do is start divvying up those non-voters into one column or another. It's votes that count.
As for your "how often should the same question be revisited? Every 6 months until the desired answer is obtained?" You're obviously getting a little giddy and you descended into silliness. But I'll answer. If there's a mandate for a referendum following an election, there should be one. If there were elections every six months -- and god help us if that were the case -- then yeah, as long as the mandates keep coming, the people keep getting what they want. Every election is a mandate for the winning party to get done what they said they want to do. On the flip side, even if opinion polls showed 90% support for a referendum, and huge crowds were demonstrating every weekend in favour of one, if a unionist party won the election, there should be no referendum.
I don't know how many times I need to say this, but issues of great importance must be decided by democratic elections. Not crowds, not calendars, not comments that were made four elections ago. Votes. And anyone who thinks that their belief is above democracy, they might want to delve a little into history to see the error of their ways.
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
You're such an obvious troll. Everyone who is as interested in nationality as you purport to be, regardless of their take on it, or on instances of it, is aware that of course a nation is a cultural construct and not a physical item that has a border.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
You write as if the battle of Culloden pitted England against Scotland, which is just hooey even if you can cite a song to prove the existence of opposition in England a couple of centuries ago, among Hanoverians, to those among the Scots who were "rebels". Big deal.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
If many on both sides of the border believe they belong to a country called Britain that includes England and Scotland then it does exist. For them. That's how national identity works. Yes, it's an illusion, or a cultural construct, but so it is for every nation, including Scotland. You can't prove otherwise with reference to some masque written in the 18th century about a 9th century Saxon king.
Several of your premises are crazed, e.g. Scotland as a "vassal state of England", and when reflected in a mirror they give an image of a crazed English counterpart (funnily enough perhaps he's dressed as a Crusader) who believes Edinburgh belongs to England because it used to be Edwin's Burgh and can cite as evidence what Edwin's men had for breakfast in Northumbria in the 7th century and how it didn't include oats.
Live in the real world, mate. Of course Scottish figures played a major role in what is called the British Empire - commanding army regiments, owning slaves, planting the Union Jack around the world, the lot of it.
I will honestly never understand why other English folk on this site have a view on Scottish independence. Surely, logically, it’s for the Scots to decide and none of my business. Let’s take each Scottish Parliament majority as a mandate if the relevant parties wish.
I wanted (and want) to leave the EU; I don’t give a toss what the French think. Same thing for the Scots in microcosm. The Union only means anything if the people of each nation wish it to. Either the Scottish accept that the vote of one person in Scotland is the same as the vote of one person in Leicester or they don’t. If they don’t, and they want to act as an individual nation then that’s their choice.
At the point they choose to leave the union I would expect rUK negotiations to be harsh, but that’s life. It’s their choice, not mine.
The reason we have a view on it is for the very reason you cite in your last sentence. The choice of independence is indeed for the Scots to decide. But it is English folk both in Parliament and on this forum who are saying they should not be allowed that choice.
And once they have chosen independence, the nature of our relationship with them will depend very much on the attitude of English politicians in Government and the English folk who support those politicians. So it is very much the business of those of us who support the right of the Scots to self determination to make the case for that and argue it against those such as HYUFD who would consider sending in the troops to stop them.
Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
You're such an obvious troll. Everyone who is as interested in nationality as you purport to be, regardless of their take on it, or on instances of it, is aware that of course a nation is a cultural construct and not a physical item that has a border.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
You write as if the battle of Culloden pitted England against Scotland, which is just hooey even if you can cite a song to prove the existence of opposition in England a couple of centuries ago, among Hanoverians, to those among the Scots who were "rebels". Big deal.
What an absurd idea, you may as well say Manchester City and Manchester United fans do not belong in the same city because of their rivalry on match day
That’s actually quite a funny post, when you realise how and why Britain was invented. I’m saying they don’t share in the way you claim. Not Culture. Not Identity. Certainly not history. And the Vassal state no longer wishes to share politically. They can’t influence it enough.
If you insist these are part of the same Nation, I’m calling it a complete fabrication.
In the first half of the 1700s political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King. Just as you said. Though of course you’ve lost Ireland from it.
At what point have the Scots ever been on board with being Vassal state of England? You saying all the shared history is good?
for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy. So it began. The Nation you feel part of.
So what Germany was forged far later than the UK by Bismark with an iron fist under the leadership of Prussia, the USA was forged and cemented after a bloody civil war
You are hard work 🙂
That’s them, let’s focus on you. it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. Presumably they saw the white cliffs of Dover and thought we were one big choc ice. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).
18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.
Can you not see what is staring at you there? Scotland has never been part of a British nation. The whole idea of Britain never existed in any reality outside of political fabrication, outside a court to please a King.
If many on both sides of the border believe they belong to a country called Britain that includes England and Scotland then it does exist. For them. That's how national identity works. Yes, it's an illusion, or a cultural construct, but so it is for every nation, including Scotland. You can't prove otherwise with reference to some masque written in the 18th century about a 9th century Saxon king.
Several of your premises are crazed, e.g. Scotland as a "vassal state of England", and when reflected in a mirror they give an image of a crazed English counterpart (funnily enough perhaps he's dressed as a Crusader) who believes Edinburgh belongs to England because it used to be Edwin's Burgh and can cite as evidence what Edwin's men had for breakfast in Northumbria in the 7th century and how it didn't include oats.
Live in the real world, mate. Of course Scottish figures played a major role in what is called the British Empire - commanding army regiments, owning slaves, planting the Union Jack around the world, the lot of it.
Thank you for your contribution. 🙂
Troll!
Actually after only 5 comments in your PB history I would suggest that term fits you absolutely perfectly.
Comments
If you knew anything about Catalonia you'd know it's one of the richest parts of Spain that is in no way subject to a Castilian "jackboot"; that Catalan independence is mainly supported in the richer part of the population who don't want to subsidise the rest of Spain; and that a majority oppose full independence.
-Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language?
Yes
-Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders?
Yes
-Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture?
No borders, but nation states obviously can have borders. Nobody has to feel they belong to a nation just because they live in the state.
if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?
For practical reasons, it will probably be the same franchise as happened in 2014: 16+ EU citizens who are normally resident in Scotland. I see much to commend that choice, and little to worry about if that is the case.
To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights?
This is a very difficult question. I don't think we should demand much by way of duties from our neighbours. Even some level of law-breaking is tolerable if we're going down the route of talking about deportation. That is to say, if someone is a migrant, deportation shouldn't be a sword of Damocles hanging over every move the migrant makes. It creates perverse incentives. In short, I'm pretty hostile to the concept of assimilation; I'm a liberal.
What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate?
I don't know. I'm not arguing for nations or new states, per se. I'm just saying it's a normal state of affairs, and it both creates and solves major problems.
This is probably not the defence of nationalism you wanted. There's no denying the great evils nationalism has unleashed, but it would be equally foolish to deny the great evils that anti-nationalism has unleashed, too. This includes colonialism and repression of minority national groups within multi-national states.
I think anyone whose theory of everything includes "nationalism is good" or "nationalism is bad", is probably missing a whole perspective that would be obvious to them if they had a little more history under their belts.
You can't boil it down to any one of those things, there's a lot going on in Catalan nationalism.
But even then, it still pushes the question to a different peg, just as loose as the other. The 2014 referendum was not "no to independence, and no further referendum unless X% turnout with Y% points majority". It was "no to independence".
The 2014 referendum gave a mandate for exactly one thing, and that thing has been and is to this day delivered. Everything else you think was on the ballot paper is debate-club chaff. In democracies, things like this are decided at the ballot box.
"Maybe what was going on right now was best for the country. If Donald Trump had won, the Left would have burned down the cities. If Joe Biden had won decisively and flipped the Senate, conservatives would have loaded the guns into their pickup trucks and laid siege. Maybe I would have confronted JT, pointed out that she’d really let herself go. But instead, everyone got a little something. And everyone was a little disappointed."
https://quillette.com/2020/11/06/without-and-within-a-fin-de-siecle-moment/
I wanted (and want) to leave the EU; I don’t give a toss what the French think. Same thing for the Scots in microcosm. The Union only means anything if the people of each nation wish it to. Either the Scottish accept that the vote of one person in Scotland is the same as the vote of one person in Leicester or they don’t. If they don’t, and they want to act as an individual nation then that’s their choice.
At the point they choose to leave the union I would expect rUK negotiations to be harsh, but that’s life. It’s their choice, not mine.
Trump would need about 62% of remaining vote to get it. This is like watching an ODI where a team needed 3.5 per over and were only getting 3. But now they need 12 per over and only getting 3 still. The required run rate is just going to keep ramping up.
There's comedy value here but there is some chilling stuff too. Here is Donald Junior calling on his father to fight "to the death":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIW5NSzBBtE
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html
Areas that suffered most bomb damage during the Blitz suffer more child deprivation today and even more Covid-19 deaths, according to new research.
He says it is also a reminder of how "geographically concentrated" the Blitz was and that the damage was not "shared out" across the country, with those in poorer, crowded housing often suffering the most.
The disadvantage in such places now, Prof Todman says is not the legacy of the war, but more a sign that the post-war settlement failed to "bring places up" and those "inequalities continue to exist".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54834759
If they hadn't run McSally twice in a row they might have had a better shot at the senate too
https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/our-purpose/group-ambassador-programme/constituency-factsheets/london-constituencies/bermondsey-and-old-southwark.pdf
I think this is probably the most accurate description of where Trump is at.
This doesn’t end after Biden is in the White House
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trumps-forever-campaign-is-just-getting-started/617021/
... Again, this is a carefully planned strategy, not a temper tantrum, and it may have several stages. The first could take the form of a Hail Mary pass, a brazen and illegal attempt to stay in office. As my colleague Barton Gellman has written, both the rhetoric and the flurry of ridiculous lawsuits are intended to create a misleading impression of electoral fraud so deep that some Republican state legislators could even be tempted to ignore the ballots and simply appoint an Electoral College delegation to vote for Trump. The head of the Pennsylvania Republican Party mentioned this as one of his “options,” although the Republican majority leader of the state Senate explicitly shot that idea down.
But even if Trump’s Hail Mary pass quickly fizzles, even if his attempt to stay in the White House is drowned out by the reality of the vote count and a tsunami of “Biden won” headlines, that doesn’t mean Trump will admit that the election was fair—ever. Even if Trump is forced to make a grudging concession speech, even if Biden is sworn in as president on January 20, even if the Trump family is forced to pack its Louis Vuitton suitcases and flee to Mar-a-Lago, it is in Trump’s interest, and a part of the Republican Party’s interest, to maintain the fiction that the election was stolen. That’s because the same base, the base that distrusts American democracy, could still be extremely useful to Trump, as well as to the Republican Party, in years to come....
But once again, you cannot divine the meaning of someone staying away from voting. You can put forward an interpretation and it will obviously be right for a PORTION of those who didn't vote. I could come up with an alternative explanation and suggest that people don't vote because they don't mind either way which party wins. And I would also be right for a PORTION of those who didn't vote.
What we can't do is start divvying up those non-voters into one column or another. It's votes that count.
As for your "how often should the same question be revisited? Every 6 months until the desired answer is obtained?" You're obviously getting a little giddy and you descended into silliness. But I'll answer. If there's a mandate for a referendum following an election, there should be one. If there were elections every six months -- and god help us if that were the case -- then yeah, as long as the mandates keep coming, the people keep getting what they want. Every election is a mandate for the winning party to get done what they said they want to do. On the flip side, even if opinion polls showed 90% support for a referendum, and huge crowds were demonstrating every weekend in favour of one, if a unionist party won the election, there should be no referendum.
I don't know how many times I need to say this, but issues of great importance must be decided by democratic elections. Not crowds, not calendars, not comments that were made four elections ago. Votes. And anyone who thinks that their belief is above democracy, they might want to delve a little into history to see the error of their ways.
And once they have chosen independence, the nature of our relationship with them will depend very much on the attitude of English politicians in Government and the English folk who support those politicians. So it is very much the business of those of us who support the right of the Scots to self determination to make the case for that and argue it against those such as HYUFD who would consider sending in the troops to stop them.