| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| agentmancuso |
CyberNatsAn interesting article about the funny little world of nationalism here:
Could it possibly be true? Do the chicken-coup-inhabiting, post-box-vandalising, different-language speaking, bunting-bedecked worshippers of the Fatherland actually turn people off the idea of "independence" with their online rantings? I think we should be told. Hat tip to the good Mr Patterson, whose selfless toil threw up this little gem. |
||||||||||||
| Lewis |
I don't think it affects it in any way, most people on Political fora don't change their opinion and use it to flaunt their beliefs. I like to try and learn from what people say, but I've mostly met lots of ignorant UKIP members, this is one of the places I haven't met so many and so I like it here 
But I don't think it sways the voters at all, most voters would go by TV and politicians, not so much Blogs. There is a common misconception amongst Bloggers that people actually care about their opinions. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Are there any other kind? |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Re: CyberNats
If I were to take the internet seriously as a medium for political discourse you would certainly have turned me off the Liberal Democrats by now. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
There is a significant distinction between taking the internet seriously as a medium for political discourse and taking this site seriously as a medium for political discourse. | ||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Regarding the poll at the top of this page, I consider on-line polls to be totally meaningless and pointless, so I never participate in them.
However, I recognise that a majority of posters on the "National Conversation" are probably nationalists. Yes, a minority of these nationalist participants can be quite rabidly so. But their rabidity is often matched by the rabidity of the unionists. The nat-dominance of the National Conversation is partly because of a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Liberal democrats, Tories, and Labour. They said the national conversation would be nat-dominated and that their supporters would not participate, and, by and large, that is what has happened. However, not entirely. Some folk of unionist views do take part in the "converation", while at the same time dismissing it. One unionist wrote on the National Conversation website “this forum is a separatists' haven and, therefore, completely unrepresentative of the views of the Scots public”. I responded to that comment "Maybe so, but at least it is OPEN to anybody, of any views, to make contributions to the discussion, and that open-ness makes it rather more representative than the Calman Commission set up by the Labour Party and co, which has quite specifically stated that it does not want to hear the views of a very large percentage of the population of Scotland. The disgraceful reality is that the members of the Calman Commission have all pre-judged against independence by agreeing to serve on a commission which has already ruled this option out. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. The people we need to hear from are the people of Scotland. In the end there is really only one way of doing that, and it is neither through a Conversation, nor a Commission, nor through a party political election. In a party political election, folk vote on all sorts of issues. Like do they want the North East of Scotland turned into a giant golf park (I don't). Like do they think a local income tax is the best thing since sliced bread (I don't). Like do they fancy Nicola more than they fancy Wendy (I'm not too keen on either). In the end, the ONLY way to hear from the people of Scotland about our country's constitutional future is through a referendum. Nothing less will do. " |
||||||||||||
| azzuri |
Shouldn't there be a third option, "don't think it affects the SNP"? | ||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Absolutely. What portion of the people visiting the website even bother to check those comments out? My bet would be that the readership is pretty much confined to the people leaving the messages.  It's just a way to keep a few Care in the Community types out of circulation by stroking their ego a bit while the real agenda on the part of the newspaper is encouraging them to provide the website with extra hits so more money can be squeezed out of online advertisers.
Desperate stuff as I doubt it makes much difference to the overall finances as almost nobody clicks on advertiser links. Meanwhile, circulation of the actual newspapers themselves keep dropping year by year as the newspaper industry continues to slowly wither away. Mind boggling that anyone with a triple digit IQ would actually take anything written in that regard seriously. Beyond that the only reason to use a board like this is to kill a bit of time. If the internet were in any way pivotal to the political process the likes of Alex Salmond and Wendy Alexander would be putting in an appearance. They know better, however. Modern politics is all about generating good 5 to 10 second soundbites that reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of people through radio and television and push their buttons on a visceral level. Even at the grassroots level the internet is nothing like as important as old fashioned canvassing by chapping on doors or calling people up. |
||||||||||||
| azzuri |
I'd agree that it's more a reflection of the way that politics is heading, but I also think that the people that frequent this and many other politics fora could be pivotal if they harness their interest in the right fashion, as it's the politics junkies like myself who are passionate about it and the way the country is heading. I think it really depends which way people use the internet. I use it mainly to communicate with others, but also as a source of knowledge. I think therefore people who use it as such could be swayed to vote a certain way depending on what they read, but if you are against Independence, you are unlikely to be a member of this forum. There are exceptions of course...
We're almost a bridge between politics and the general population, not really sure where we fit in in the whole process... |
||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
In terms of political scrutiny any sort of political activity/discussion wherever it may occur and by those interested is going to be important. If nothing else it tells the politicians where to look.
When it comes to online discussion the power of that is enhanced as a conversation that might have taken place in a pub, for instance, and which would only have had a limited audience can now take place on line and be potentially accessed by millions. I'd certainly say that the blogging community has provided me with a far greater information base than I would have without them. There is a lot of information out there, but the main stream media simply isn't about to point it out to you. Anyone who is engaging in 'angry' rhetoric will only do their cause harm in the eyes of the moderate majority and so in that regard Wendy Alexander's 'flag-burning english hating' bloggers are doing a harm to the SNP cause. On the other hand those who can argue their corner in more moderate and sensible tones are likely to do the cause no harm at all or may indeed benefit it. There are ineteresting parallels to be drawn with the fledgling move for English Nationalism and the campaign for an English parliament where certain sections argue that the problem with English Democracy is 'the scottish raj' or the fact that the Scottish electorate get this or that that they do not. |
||||||||||||
| George |
It is interesting that the elected Unionist MP's and MSP's have begun to mirror the intolerant and provocative rhetoric of their internet counterparts. Take a look at the opening paragraph from 'agent' to see the insidious comment that passes for debate.
Indeed the article he has lovingly reproduced for us is a case in point. Note how it focusses on the negative aspects of comments from independence supporters whilst ignoring the proportionally greater number of such comments from the Unionists. The Herald and The Scotsman are also chalk and cheese, anyone with a modicum of reason can see that The Scotsman is a unionist troll fest, as lacking in online debate as the paper is in balance. Herald comments are far more constructive, although there are the occassional trolls that try to ruin it. The web has provided a rich source of information that otherwise wouldn't be freely available. Some people are perhaps unaware of the role that the internet has played in destroying many of the old Unionist myths regarding Scotlands fiscal potential/reality. I myself have learned a great deal from such forums and that has allowed me to pass this information on. The fact that those Unionists in authority have begun to attack internet posters is proof of the effect it is having. Even Herald journalist Douglas Fraser was reduced to describing his online critics as 'vermin' and 'sewer dwellers'. The strength of the independence movements argument is immense, take away the name calling from Unionists and there is little else remaining. The internet cannot provide an exact counterbalance to the Unionist press but it offers some. Here's a question for you all; How many believe that the contributions from the likes of 'Aventinian', 'AM2' and the like have furthered the cause of Unionism? |
||||||||||||
| Lewis |
Not me, I tend to just think that they merely destroy nationalism and give no other choice thus give nothing to reconsider with.
Most of us would stick to our guns though anyway. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Have to disagree with you there. The main weakness in the SNP case right now is the whole question of what currency to use in the aftermath. If the UK were in the eurozone it would be much easier to convince pragmatists to go all the way. There are reasons why "more powers" is attractive to a lot of people. Beyond that Scotland and England have been in an incorporating political union for long enough and are close enough now culturally (after three centuries of the upper classes deliberately anglifying themselves followed by the impact of largely London based electronic media over the last century) that many people do genuinely see themselves as British first and view being Scottish in Texan or Bavarian sort of terms even if the UK lacks the federal structure that could give it a firm basis in constitutional terms. Maybe worth bearing in mind that the Solway and the Tweed is nothing like as marked a cultural boundary as the Dutch-French linguistic interface in Belgium but Belgium still seems to find a way to stagger on through force of habit because most people don't see all the hassle that would be associated with finally pulling the plug as being worth the effort. Flemings and Walloons are still Flemings and Walloons and daily life goes on regardless of what flag gets run up the flagpole in the morning.
For those who are on the fence about constitutional issues people on both sides of the independence argument can appear equally bad in that regard. The behaviour traits involved are part of the human condition and aren't something that is associated with one particular political viewpoint. There really isn't much point in having a discussion if you are unable to concede that the other guy might be right and that he or she isn't inherently evil or defective in some way but that doesn't seem to stop a lot of people on both sides from plunging in.
|
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
If only the good people of Angus could be so phlegmatic.
Such tempting waters... |
||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
William Cleland wrote "the Solway and the Tweed is nothing like as marked a cultural boundary as the Dutch-French linguistic interface in Belgium" - no, but it is a marked legal boundary of long standing. On one side of that boundary, Scots law has applied for many centuries, while, on the other side of that boundary, English law has applied for many centuries. When a referendum was held on setting up a Scottish Parliament, there was absolutely no problem at all with defining who could vote on this: people on the electoral register in places where Scottish law applied. In Belgium, there is a linguistic divide, but in practice it is hard to say exactly which street in the suburbs of Brussels forms the cultural boundary. They simply don't have that centuries old legal boundary.
"Belgium still seems to find a way to stagger on through force of habit because most people don't see all the hassle that would be associated with finally pulling the plug as being worth the effort" - Belgium staggers on because it is impossible to say exactly which street in the suburbs of the the capital city of the kingdom should form the boundary. We have no such problem. William also says "Flemings and Walloons are still Flemings and Walloons and daily life goes on regardless of what flag gets run up the flagpole in the morning", to which Agentmancuso comments "If only the good people of Angus could be so phlegmatic". When a gale of wind blew down one of the two flagpoles on the council buildings in Brechin (the newer, and cheaper, one), Angus County Council decided they had no option but to spend more public money on a stronger flagpole. However, when, a couple of months earlier than that, a gale of wind blew down the improvised flagpole (which hadn't cost a penny) on my own garage, I just shrugged my shoulders and decided not to bother putting the flag back up. Of course daily life goes on in Angus regardless. |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I'm not sure that Belgium is such a good example of stability and harmony when you consider it took them 192 days to agree on a government after their most recent general election.
As for the statement than many people feel British first, you will have to define many, as all reputable polls give Scottish identity a massive lead over any feelings of Britishness in Scotland. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I wasn't really using Belgium as an example of stability and harmony and tried to imply quite the opposite with "stagger on". What's interesting (at least to me anyway) is that despite Belgium being essentially dead as a nation in that there are now very few shared institutions that meaningfully bridge the linguistic divide they still carried on with their shared decentralized state despite a crisis that reached almost farcical proportions. Sometimes there needs to be a very strong push factor to get people to summon up the energy to carry out a radical change, which from the outside would appear the logical outcome. Most people see Scotland as being the national entity that they primarily identify with (although a significant minority do not) but they don't necessarily feel motivated to create an independent state on that basis.
|
||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
William wrote "I wasn't really using Belgium as an example of stability and harmony" - but you did draw a parallel, and that parallel isn't valid.
Despite the linguistic divide, Belgium would be a total nightmare for anybody to attempt to disentangle. The capital city, Brussels, is mainly French-speaking, but it is completely surrounded by Dutch-speaking suburbs. In contrast, the capital of the UK, London, is unquestionably in England, while Edinburgh is unquestionably in Scotland. Belgium is very different from the UK, very different from Scotland. The low countries to the north of France have always been a bit of a mishmash. At one time they were ruled by Spain, but the protestants of the northern provinces rebelled against the Spanish Inquisition. The boundary between the Dutch-speakers of the Netherlands and the Dutch-speakers of Belgium is essentially just the line that the Spanish rulers managed to hold, that's all. The modern state of Belgium was cobbled together in the early Nineteenth Century, on the initiative of the then British government, out of the remains of the Spanish Netherlands plus French-speaking Wallonia, as a means of keeping France in its place. In total contrast, both Scotland and England were long-established kingdoms when the UK was formed. Although the Scots who agreed that Union are condemned by Scottish Nationalists, they did manage to ensure, as a condition of that Union, that Scotland retained its own separate Legal System, Church, and Education. As a result, the boundary between Scotland and England has always remained a genuine boundary. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
The problem with your analysis is that the current convention on this is that the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia, which were drawn on a whim by Tito and co during WWII. Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels are all well delineated from that standpoint:-
and given Brussels is majority francophone there is not much doubt where it would wind up. The Flemish are already well used to the concept of enclaves and exclaves:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog and in the context of the Schengen zone they are no big deal. You want to see a "total contrast" but you are about 40 years out of date as Belgium ceased to be a unitary state in 1970. |
||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
William wrote "The problem with your analysis is that the current convention on this is that the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia, which were drawn on a whim by Tito and co during WWII."
The Yugoslav precedent is hardly one to inspire much confidence! And no, it is not always true that "the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia". Those boundaries were only respected when doing so was to Serbia's disadvantage. Under the Yugoslav Federation, Kosovo was part of Serbia. In any case, there are plenty of folk in Belgium who dispute that convention. The map you provided shows the reason why. On your map, Brussels is completely surrounded by Flemish territory - but only just. In the southern suburbs of the capital, there's just a narrow strip of Flemish territory between French-speaking Brussels and French-speaking Wallonia. Those southern suburbs are a source of friction. There are quite a lot of French speakers there already, and the natural tendency of folk to move to the suburbs means that the number of French speakers there is tending to increase. But the Flemish Nationalists in charge of the local councils there are doing everything they can to prevent folk from selling or renting their houses to French speakers, because they figure (probably correctly) that, sooner or later, this could lead to a re-drawing of boundaries with Brussels being linked politically to Wallonia. Yes, a situation where there is a heated dispute about the southern suburbs of the capital city certainly IS a total contrast with our own situation. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Not sure it is only about doing whatever is to Serbia's disadvantage, Dave. Kosovo was part of the rotating presidency post-Tito. Hence why western countries claim there is no precedent for the likes of Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Tito era boundaries of Kosovo are still being respected despite the fact that a large chunk of northern Kosovo is predominantly Serb and wants no part of independence. If Belgium fell apart the Flemish nationalists in those southern suburbs you mention would have nothing to worry about as they are legally part of Flanders. We are straying a wee bit off topic so that's it from me on this particular tangent. | ||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Logical? Only if you happen to believe that linguistic divides correspond "logically" with administrative boundaries. Ein Volk, ein Reich.
Indeed. Very sensible they are too. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Surely you don't mean these nationalists are behaving in an openly discriminatory and xenophobic way? I thought that was supposed to be a scare story dreamed up by "the Unionist Press"? |
||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I said about those in local government of some of the suburbs of Brussels "Flemish Nationalists in charge of the local councils there are doing everything they can to prevent folk from selling or renting their houses to French speakers"
Agentmancuso says "Surely you don't mean these nationalists are behaving in an openly discriminatory and xenophobic way?" That is exactly what I do mean. "I thought that was supposed to be a scare story dreamed up by 'the Unionist Press'?" Here in Scotland, you do often get scare stories dreamed up by 'the Unionist Press' which have very little basis in reality. However, even in Scotland, where "civic nationalism" tends to predominate, a small minority of nationalists are of the "openly discriminatory and xenophobic" variety, and amongst Flemish Nationalists this unpleasant form of nationalism tends to be dominant. It would, of course, be xenophobic to suggest that the Flemings are just naturally more unpleasant. The reasons why Flemish nationalism tends to be more "openly discriminatory and xenophobic" than Scottish nationalism are to be found in differences in the geography and history of these two very different places. We're just luckier than them, in some ways. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Of course, it had inexplicably slipped my mind - it's all those other guys that are the Bad Nationalists, whereas we, being cut from an altogether better cloth, are blessed with the Good Nationalists. | ||||||||||||
| George |
Bandying words with the bigots and intolerant Unionist fanatics who attempt to slur many decent Scots is a waste of valuable time.
Here are a few phrases from the pantomime villain stand in:
It took a while to realise that these people aren't interested in debate, they are out to provoke. Observing them screaming "racists" from behind a metaphorical white cone mask is irony at it's best..........poke fun at them, they get awfully irked, but don't take them seriously guys. |
||||||||||||
| Lewis |
To put all Nationalists under one banner is to put all right-wingers under one banner and to put all left wingers under one banner. To do so would be terribly ignorant. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Are you sure? Wouldn't it be a plausible taxonomical solution to put all 'right-wingers' under the 'right wing' banner. And all 'left-wingers' under the 'left-wing' banner? And even, hey ho, all nationalists under the 'nationalist' banner? After all, all nationalisms share the same set of ludicrous assumptions. |
||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
These being? |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
All nationalism is predicated on the following: 1) the existence of an essential political entity 2) the existence of an external threat to the cohesion of this entity 3) the existence of a debt of allegiance to this political entity necessitating the taking of urgent steps to defend the cohesion of this entity. Utter fantasy of course. And it inevitably expresses itself in the same tired old populist ways: 1) They're stealing all our taxes 2) They're dissolving our legal system 3) They're damaging our cultural integrity 4) They don't care about us, it's just a faceless (foreign) bureaucracy (Regular readers, please forgive the copy & paste..) |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Utter fantasy indeed, and agentmancuso is the fantasist.
These are his phrases, he is the one who posts them. It's a not very good straw man argument; he makes up his own fantasy nationalists and then argues against them rather than the real people in the real world. What colour is the sky on your planet, agentmancuso? |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Argue the actual points, if you're up to it. | ||||||||||||
| Holebender |
What points? Make some which bear a passing resemblance to reality and I might argue them. Otherwise I won't waste my time, or anybody else's. | ||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
These points:
Can you name any nationalism which does not conform to this simple definition? |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
You seriously want an answer?
Scottish nationalism is not predicated on points 2 and 3. Game over, what a bore. Now... why don't you go and play with the other children and leave the grown ups alone. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
2. So you accept that absolutely no threat to Scotland's economic, financial, cultural, linguistic, social or political welfare is presented by continued participation in the Union? 3. So you have lost your urgent enthusiasm for anti-democratic populist gimmicks like referendums on 'independence'?
That really does smack of desperation. |
||||||||||||
| Lewis |
You seem to have the thought that you are right and everyone else is wrong. What you sir have is an opinion, what we have also is an opinion, you must understand that no matter how much you flash your three points at us we sill not change our opinion. | ||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I didn't ask you, or anyone else, to change their opinion. I asked them to justify it. Do you disagree that all nationalisms are based on the identical assumptions outlined above? | ||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I have to question your intelligence after that. If there are no political parties that bridge the linguistic divide and if it takes half a year to form a government, it's probably time to call it a day. The state clearly isn't working so the logical perspective from the outside would be that it is time to try another arrangement. Nowhere in that analysis is there a suggestion that Switzerland should split four ways because unlike the Belgians the Swiss have been able to make it work. Trivialising the legacy of Nazism to make petty playground level jibes like that is pathetic. |
||||||||||||
| Lewis |
1) You didn't specify about the political entity, is this a party, a nation or a country? People are affiliated to all sorts of things but aren't nationalists. 2) Constructive Nationalism doesn't judge the outside as a threat therefore this would apply to a lot of left-wing, centre-right and centrist Nationalist movements. But in most Destructive nationalist regimes yes this would apply. 3)the "debt of alliegance" in Constructive nationalism is a choice. But a lot of people feel affiliated with their nation anyway. The benefit of this is the fact that the nation can have a common goal which they can work to achieve. But there are anarchist movements which involve one "political entity" which no doubt wouldn't have the pledge of alliegance. So it does apply to most Destructive Nationalist Regimes, but not to most Constructive natioanlist regimes. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
He listens to this:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeOR_sNSPbg but he hears this:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQBhxOFjCn0 basically. 
Maybe the problem is that he has no actual experience of politics gone completely mental. The reality is that it isn't something that is confined to nationalism. Pol Pot would be Labour politics gone totally berserk, Adolf would be Maggie taking the "enemy within" a wee bit further than the Miners Strike and Robespierre would be Liberalism taken a tad too far. Somehow though only one particular brand of politics gets the guilt by association treatment as far as agentmancuso is concerned. |
||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
1. It is a fact of life that we live in boundaries which have been established over (in most cases) long periods of time and which are considered to be political for the most part. Many of those who live within those boundaries share common values and beliefs. This is not only seen at a national level, but may also manifest in a local context where there is no specific or essential political entity. 2. An external threat need not exist for those within your mislabelled 'political entity' to behave in a manner to ensure cohesion. It is more likely that internal needs will drive cohesion, this can be seen in the context of base motivational factors. I can seen no reason whereby a number of nationalist entities should co-exist side-by-side without recourse to threats from their neighbours ... 3. That is to say that we are safer as a group and groups will often act in order to defend itself. This is not negative, this is a fact of everyday family life. A social creatures we are depedent on those around us to ensure our continuation, no urgent steps need be taken to defend the cohesion of a group where there is no imminent threat of physical violence. Actually point 3 doesn't make any sense. Why does a debt of allegiance necessitate urgent steps to defend anything? |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Now you're moving the goalposts, and not very subtly either. Your points 2 and 3 were
Scottish nationalism is not predicated on either of these things and these things need not exist for Scottish nationalism to exist. Furthermore, your response to the point three item above bears hardly any discernible resemblance to your original point three. What on earth do you consider anti-democratic about asking people to vote on the constitutional future of their country? Refusing a referendum is far more anti-democratic as far as I can see. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries? |
||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Nice to see the response to this. I'm glad you all see yourselves as noble warriors engaged in some great battle on behalf of King Alex.
Freeeeedom. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Try reading what I wrote again in the quoted text and you will find the answer. Did you even bother to read it? |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
The study of psychology has provided strong evidence that the human mind can only cope with about 150 people as individuals. The concept is referred to as the monkeysphere based on Dunbar's number:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html Once you move beyond that number the human mind simply can't cope any more and starts to stereotype large groups so they can all be treated as if they were one person:- http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_p2.html Nothing unusual about that then because it is just part of the human condition. The truly deluded are the people who believe that they are above "them and us" stuff, however, and are not aware that they have an innate capacity for it. As stated earlier in the thread, I am not an SNP supporter and just so you know I absolutely detest Braveheart, Arventinian, but keep having fun with your overly simplistic stereotyping if it keeps you amused. I'm sure that posting this won't stop you from doing it again in the future. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I did read it, and found it to be a lumbering attempt to side-step the main question which is whether state boundaries have any logical connection with state boundaries, as you previously claimed. Have another try: Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries? |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Even a fundamentalist like yourself can't really believe that Scottish nationalism would exist without the UK/England to complain about?
On the contrary, the obsession with holding rigged referendums is a perfect example of the 'urgent steps' to which I referred.
Democracy works through the stable and predictable operation of institutions, not by asking which of two minority groups can howl the loudest. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Largely true. For example, I live in South Lanarkshire, which was created in 1996. But there is no necessary link between living in an administrative area and and the urge to defend it against external threats. This dangerous connection is made by nationalism.
There is no reason why a number of nations can't do so. But nationalism is precisely the identification of external threats and the assertion of collective identity as a response.
You would think that to be the case, yes. But nationalism consists of the invention of external threats as a means of enforcing cultural/linguistic/social cohesion.
Non of it makes any sense. That's why I argue against it. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
So in other words no you didn't read my comment about Switzerland not necessarily having to split four ways before replying last time around but are not willing to back down and admit you made a mistake. |
||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
I tend to disagree, nationalism exists in the interests of the people, yes this may be as a result of external threats, but may also arise as a result internal problems an d the pooling of resources in order to overcome those problems, e.g. a food crisis.
I think that the more you look at it the more it seems like that. I think you and I shall have to agree to disagree  
|
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
You won't make much headway. He wouldn't be able to demonise his political opponents if he concedes that. A few months back Holebender and I tried to explain to him on here that it takes a sense of loyalty to a larger national entity (i.e. civic nationalism) to make liberalism possible as rights and freedoms flow from being a member of a larger group or society. Without that there is anarchy. Should be common sense but it doesn't fit comfortably into his sectarian mindset where his political opponents are evil and dangerous and only people like him are holders of the one true political doctrine. He would have fitted in well back in the 17th century basically. Some of the key values of the Enlightenment appear to have passed him by. |
||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
I've always been of the opinion that beliefs (political or otherwise) are contextual. It may well be that his opions hold true within the context of his life, doesn't make them any less valid than anyone else's. It's a sad fact that there are those unable to articulate their nationalism in a more constructive manner and who would probably fit into the paradigm. I like to think of nationalism as a continuum between progressive and regressive, I think the terms used elsewhere on the forum constructive and destructive work equally well ... I think those were the terms anyway! |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I'll take that as agreement that there is absolutely no logical connection between linguistic boundaries and administrative boundaries. It's nice to agree on something. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Nationalism certainly claims to exist in the interests of the people. But in reality it acts in the interest of only some people. By definition, it necessitates the singling out of some other people as not us.
That's a reasonable point. But whereas a food crisis is a genuine threat, in response to which communal action may be of benefit, most of the threats drummed up by nationalisms are imaginary or exaggerated.
Such civility is unusual on this forum, but very welcome! |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
If you really want to predicate Scottish nationalism on three conditions, they are as follows;
1. That Scotland exists as a well defined geographical area. 2. That Scotland is not autonomous or wholly self-governing. 3. That there are people who believe Scotland should be autonomous or wholly self-governing. As long as these three conditions are true Scottish nationalism will exist. There is no need for any external factor (threat or otherwise) except an external government. It has absolutely nothing to do with "us" against "them" or wishing any lessening of anyone's wellbeing or status, it is entirely about improving how Scotland is governed, in the eyes of those who do not believe the present arrangement is the best possible. Anything else is the product of a fevered imagination. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Does this mean that you believe in one world government? If as I strongly suspect you see a future for the UK as a national state with a sovereign right to control its immigration policy etc then you my friend are a nationalist as well by that definition. |
||||||||||||
| will live from Glasgow |
Nationalists who can articulate their arguement well are of course a benefit to the SNP,but i think a lot of the time most cybernats on messageboards settle for: FRDM 4EVA as the be all and end all of their position. This convinces no one who is not already a nationalist and may well annoy those who otherwise might be inclined to support indenpendence | ||||||||||||
| Kendomacaroonbar |
I agree WLFG, unfortunately as hard as they try, the Labour Party cannot claim a monopoly on dunderheids ? Good effort from them though !
|
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No. I believe in subsidiarity.
You suspect wrong. |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Subsidiarity requires a sovereign body from which power is devolved downwards to the appropriate level. What do you see as the overarching body? | ||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Nowadays sovereignty lies with the European Union. But the whereabouts of technical sovereignty is not really the issue. What matters is the possession of actual power - I believe power should be devolved down to the lowest practicable level and away from the state out into the community wherever possible. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I'll start by reminding you that you wrote this previously:-
On checking these links out:- http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0506/serbia.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2270575.stm do you now understand what I was getting at when I mentioned one world government earlier in the thread? I think you also need to brush up on your knowledge of federalism and move out of the prevailing crown in parliament Westminster sort of mindset if you really do think that sovereignty only lies with the EU. A loose confederation like the EU inherently involves a sharing of sovereignty because only some of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded to the European Union. |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Don't you understand that it is those who do the devolving who have the power, not those who receive their largesse? If they didn't have the power in the first place they'd be in no position to devolve it. It's like a manager delegating in the workplace. |
||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
True subsidiarity renders sovereignty an obsolete concept. The EU has already made that more or less the case already.
I wasn't aware bodies like the EU, who exercise the concept of subsidiarity, ever had supreme authority over the states of Europe. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Well yes, obviously. But as I said the theoretical whereabouts of sovereignty isn't the main issue: the actual possession of legal power is. As no less an authority than Enoch Powell said, Power devolved is power retained. In practice this needn't matter a great deal. Westminster has the legal sovereignty to abolish Holyrood, or to remove any powers from Holyrood that it sees fit. But that isn't going to happen, so the functioning practical power to legislate on devolved issues is squarely in Holyrood's hands. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No.
It is unclear how the end of that sentence connects with its beginning. Sovereignty lies with the EU in the strict sense that EU law trumps domestic law.
All of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded. Much of the practical power is devolved back to member states. Who in turn devolve it to national parliaments, regional assemblies, and local authorities. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, that's the (admittedly slightly clumsy) distinction I'm trying to make between 'sovereignty' and 'practical power'.
Legally, the EU is where the buck stops. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Should be obvious enough. Only with a one world government and a global citizenship is no line drawn between them (i.e. non-citizens) and us (citizens). There isn't a state or a major political movement anywhere in the entire world that doesn't fit the definition of nationalism that you outlined above.
You have obviously never lived in a country run on the basis of a federal constitution and have no idea what the Lib Dems are actually advocating when they talk about a federal Britain. Did all the stuff about the UK's red lines pass you by when the European Union constitution was being negotiated? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3235898.stm UK ministers have set out a series of "red lines" they say they will not allowed to be crossed in negotiations over the new European constitution. The government says the UK is ready to veto the whole project if it does not get its way on these key issues. The "red lines" were outlined in a white paper earlier this year: * Defence: The UK says it must remain in control of its own defence and foreign policy. There must be no European defence cooperation which undermines or replaces Nato (the Atlantic alliance headed by the US which includes most of Europe). * Treaty changes: The UK says it opposes the removal of the national veto for major decisions on the EU's future. * Tax: Taxation must be decided by nation states alone. The draft constitution would allow for majority voting on measures to tackle cross border tax fraud - British ministers think this would allow the EU into the tax field by the back door. * Justice: The UK says it is determined to stop majority voting being introduced for steps towards harmonising European common law systems. It also insists it will not give up the UK's right to carry out frontier patrols. * Social Security: The British argument here is that social support systems are very complicated and so the EU should only be allowed to make changes through unanimous votes. * European resources: The UK wants any changes to the EU's right to raise certain funds to be agreed by unanimity alone. That would protect the controversial British annual budget rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._states A U.S. state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States, although four states use the official title "commonwealth". The separate state governments and the federal government share sovereignty, in that an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state of domicile.[1] However, state citizenship is very flexible, and no government approval is required to move between states (with the exception of convicts on parole). The United States Constitution allocates power between the two levels of government in general terms. By ratifying the Constitution, each state transfers certain sovereign powers to the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not explicitly transferred are retained by the states and the people. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
There is a difference between accepting the reality of boundaries that have come about through tribalism and actually promoting the erection of new boundaries out of tribalism.
There is one. Liberalism.
No. But it just confirms what I was saying before about legal sovereignty being distinct from practical power. Of course the UK, as a society hampered by nationalist rednecks of one kind or another, feels the need to draw these 'lines in the sand' and all the rest of it. But it's a largely posture for the tabloids. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Your definition of nationalism was clearly flawed because liberalism would require a one world government approach to not to fit into it. In reality it never has taken that form and liberalism, in fact, went hand in hand with nationalism when the values of the Enlightenment swept across Europe in the 19th century as the modern nation state emerged.
Now that you want to move the goalposts a bit the obvious flaw in your new approach about tribalism creating new boundaries would be why having Scotland emerging as a member state of the EU is supposed to be such a big deal, if you really do believe in subsidiarity and you are not just using it as a debating ploy? An independent Scotland moves the national level of government closer to people, which is what subsidiarity purports to be all about, after all. The movement of Polish people to the UK in recent years also shows that the new boundaries wouldn't actually mean very much in employment and economic terms and even in the ability of people from other parts of the UK to vote in future Scottish elections. Contrary to your depiction of nationalist rednecks there are actually very sound reasons for being very careful when drafting a federal constitution. A brief perusal of American history might tell you why but of course first you would actually have to understand what federalism is all about first before you would be able to grasp why. Federations work best from a states' rights sort of angle when there is a very clear delineation of state and federal sovereignty and there is no ambiguous grey area like the Commerce Clause of the US constitution, which can later be used to legally justify pushing federal authority much further than had ever originally been intended by the people drafting the constitution. Most of Blair's red lines were about ensuring that clarity. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No it doesn't. Liberalism has no place for essential political entities. Nations are formed through historical accident.
Indeed. The autocratic European empires of the time were quite rightly viewed as a hindrance to liberal democracy.
Because I would have very serious reservations about the future development of an independent Scotland. Look at what happened to Ireland after it became independent - a sub-fascist clerically dominated theme park. They got over it in the end, when the money started rolling in from Europe, but it took a long time.
Yes. It's the single best argument that separatists have, and the reason I was a member of the SNP for 15 years. Unfortunately it gets drowned out by talk of 'national pride'.
True.
I understand perfectly well what federalism is about, as I suspect, does Mr Blair. His 'red lines' had bugger all to do with clarity, and plenty to do with posing as 'tough on Europe' for the benefit of the Daily Mail reading ex-Tories who brought him to power. |
||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Do you honestly think Scotland circa 2020 would be anything like Ireland circa 1920? If not, why even bother to mention it? | ||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
My jaw dropped on reading that as well given we had just been discussing the finer points of the EU in this thread, which wasn't around in 1920 and has been largely responsible for the positive changes in the RoI over the last generation, but I probably shouldn't have been surprised. He also thought all sovereignty had been ceded by the member states to the EU after all so he clearly isn't Brain of Britain material politically. Difficult to take him seriously any more. He probably demonises people for supporting the SNP because he simply doesn't understand the finer details of politics and differing political philosophies and so can only put together a crude set of stereotypes. Not behaviour that's confined to any political philosophy of course. You will find people like that who are overly dogmatic and opinionated right across the political spectrum. | ||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
European law trumps member state law. Fact.
The only demonising going on comes from you. But then, it's well established by now that you resort to aggressively ad hominem attacks whenever you loose an argument. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes. In that the political arena will continue to be dominated by obsessive concern for Scotland's constitutional relationship with the UK for a very long time afterwards. And in that a sizable element of the population will react to changing/difficult circumstances by aggressively asserting their "identity" and banging on about "national pride" when we should be trying to fix potholes and leaking roofs instead. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
After your behaviour in the Scots Language thread the gloves came off. You have consistently shown sneering disrespect for other users on here so you are the last person who should be making comments about ad hominen attacks from others. I haven't lost this argument and it is farcical for you to claim so. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
We have established that EU law takes precedence over the law of member states. It is evidently nonsense to describe a body that takes second place in matters of law as 'sovereign' in any way. | ||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
The key words in what you have linked to are "where a conflict". Not much point being in a club set up by complex supranational agreements like the Maastricht Treaty if any member state can enact laws that conflict with it is there? Blair and his red lines clearly illustrate that very sizable areas of sovereignty remain with the member states, which are not covered by treaties like Maastricht and, therefore, can't be a source of conflict in legal terms. I am not going to go tit-for-tat with you on this for 20 pages. I suggest you read a book about federalism and educate yourself. | ||||||||||||
| mal |
The cyber nats do a good job on the forums of the biased press,whats wrong with correcting rabid labour journos?
They must be doing a good job otherwise the Herald wouldn`t have censored comment on the opposition leader with the brain of a small planet. |
||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I disagree. In case of conflict
In other words, despite all the huffing and puffing for the tabloids, it is accepted by all parties that sovereignty lies with the EU. |
||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
http://www.conservapedia.com/European_Union
The European Court of Justice The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgements in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a member state comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifi |