| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lewis
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 81
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I beg to differ, I tried to come up with a way of differentiating Nationalism and I came up with principles of constructive and destructive nationalism.
Basically Destructive (or Exclusive) Nationalism is where you say you are the best and you only welcome those who are already citizens, it can be to various degrees and it tends to be the more right wing folks who do this. Constructive (or Inclusive) Nationalism is the belief that your people are not prospering and so you act by making more people participate in the nation and you try and achieve independence through democracy and respect. I wrote it all down, but I believe it is slightly ignorant to put all nats under the one generalisation.
_________________
Hammish Independence |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
It's remarkable how intently nationalists claim " We're the good nationalists. It's those other guys that are the bad nationalists".
How come nobody ever admits to being the bad nationalists? It's always someone else's fault....
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | 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.
It's remarkable how intently nationalists claim " We're the good nationalists. It's those other guys that are the bad nationalists".
How come nobody ever admits to being the bad nationalists? It's always someone else's fault.... |
Your usual nonsense. This really is school playground level stuff. The traits of the mindset you describe can easily be identified in the Westminster elite's attitude towards European integration but in your myopic parochial world view they don't qualify as being nationalists because nationalism for you only revolves around the Union of 1707. If your political philosophy is that it is a good thing for the national state to be governed from Edinburgh in the context of devolved issues why do you see it as the end of civilization as we have known it for a few reserved issues to be dealt with that way as well when the European Union provides a clear framework for continued political and economic union after independence? It has been a generation now since the SNP could sensibly be portrayed as a party driven by a 19th century style nationalism and people like Jim Fairlie who would fit your description at least to some extent left when the likes of Salmond and Sillars came to the fore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | The traits of the mindset you describe can easily be identified in the Westminster elite's attitude towards European integration |
I doubt it very much. The attitude shown by the Westminster elite is, as usual, one of sheer populism. The attitude displayed by many English voters towards Europe is exactly the same as that displayed towards the UK by SNP voters, and equally reprehensible. Who said:
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
Was it a London cabbie whining about the EU, or a CyberNat whining about the UK? Peas in a pod.
| Quote: |
in your myopic parochial world view they don't qualify as being nationalists because nationalism for you only revolves around the Union of 1707. |
Wrong again. They are nationalists. Nationalism revolves around an emotional attachment to a projected idea of the communal self (the "Nation") that is under attack. Dates have nothing to do with it; it's a state of mind. Either you believe that foreign baddies are trying to hurt your projected communal self, or you don't.
| Quote: | | If your political philosophy is that it is a good thing for the national state to be governed from Edinburgh in the context of devolved issues |
It doesn't. My political philosophy takes little account of the 'National State' idolatry. It is a good principle that power be exercised as closely to the ground as possible.
| Quote: |
why do you see it as the end of civilization as we have known it for a few reserved issues to be dealt with that way |
I don't. But the single greatest threat to civilization is - and always has been - the emotional attachment to a projected communal identity.
| Quote: | | It has been a generation now since the SNP could sensibly be portrayed as a party driven by a 19th century style nationalism and people like Jim Fairlie who would fit your description at least to some extent left when the likes of Salmond and Sillars came to the fore. |
Salmond is a very capable politician. But then his recent comments about making Westminster dance to a Scottish tune could quite easily have been made by some 19th century nationalist zealot.
Surely that made you cringe a bit?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to the schoolteacher with a red pen approach of the line by line rebuttal I see. I'll repeat you are talking your usual nonsense. Scotland isn't a "state of mind". It has continued to have an existence as a national entity in many social contexts based on the fact that the incorporating Union of 1707 predated the Enlightenment and the modern nation state, which shaped the Jacobinism of the French Republic.
Support for devolution and/or independence is usually about creating a more normal state of affairs in which the administrative and cultural autonomy of the existing set of national institutions such as the legal and education systems is matched by legislative autonomy. For a supporter of devolution such as yourself to make such a song and dance about the addition of a few extra powers to Holyrood is nothing more than small minded sectarianism, in my opinion.
As for your last sentence. Are you really so far gone in tribalism terms that you think I am an SNP supporter? I will reiterate that I am open minded towards but remain unconvinced by the arguments of going all the way to independence at this time. The sort of posture that somebody who truly isn't driven by either British or Scottish nationalism would tend to adopt if their prime concern is simply the improvement of governance and civil society.
Last edited by William_Cleland on Thu May 01, 2008 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1261
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not that foreign baddies are trying to hurt my projected communal self, it's that the people in charge look out for themselves first and their interests do not coincide with the interests of my community. The best solution to that problem is to remove the power the remote central government has over my community, to become independent of them.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Scotland isn't a "state of mind". |
No, it's a legal and administrative unit. Nationalism (i.e. the dual perception of a collective identity to be protected and the existence of 'negative outside' influences to be resisted) is a state of mind, and not a very healthy one either.
| Quote: | | It has continued to have an existence as a national entity in many social contexts based on the fact that the incorporating Union of 1707 predated the Enlightenment and the modern nation state, which shaped the Jacobinism of the French Republic. |
I'd be inclined to say that it was the Jacobinism of the French Republic which shaped the modern nation state, but that would only be to grant some validity to this irrelevant diversion.
| Quote: | | Support for devolution and/or independence is usually about creating a more normal state of affairs in which the administrative and cultural autonomy of the existing set of national institutions such as the legal and education systems is matched by legislative autonomy. |
Normal? You can't be serious.
| Quote: | | For a supporter of devolution such as yourself to make such a song and dance about the addition of a few extra powers to Holyrood is nothing more than small minded sectarianism, in my opinion. |
On the contrary, I welcome and encourage the addition of extra powers to Holyrood.
| Quote: | | Are you really so far gone in tribalism terms that you think I am an SNP supporter? |
You do appear to be getting rather cuddly with them of recent.
| Quote: | | I will reiterate that I am open minded towards but remain unconvinced by the arguments of going all the way to independence at this time. The sort of posture that somebody who truly isn't driven by either British or Scottish nationalism would tend to adopt if their prime concern is simply the improvement of governance and civil society. |
Hey, what do you know! We are agreed after all.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | It's not that foreign baddies are trying to hurt my projected communal self, it's that the people in charge look out for themselves first and their interests do not coincide with the interests of my community. The best solution to that problem is to remove the power the remote central government has over my community, to become independent of them. |
The problem is that the people in charge will always be tempted to look after their own interests first. Which is why the powers of the state must be clearly delineated and why expansion of the state's area of operation ought to be resisted, irrespective of tribal identity.
I remain highly dubious about "the interests of my community". How do you define your community? On what basis are you fit to decide what is in their interests anyway? Dangerous territory don't you think?
I agree, though, with the principle that people should be as independent of the government as possible.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1261
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
My community is the community I live in. I hold an opinion on what is best for my community in the same way that every single citizen who marks a ballot paper on an election day holds an opinion on what is best for his or her community. Like every other voter, I am in no position to impose my will on everyone else (nor would I like to be) and my will will only prevail if enough of my fellow voters hold similar opinions and vote in the same way as I do.
It's not a difficult concept for most people to grasp.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | I remain highly dubious about "the interests of my community". How do you define your community? On what basis are you fit to decide what is in their interests anyway? Dangerous territory don't you think? |
If you follow this line of thought through to it's logical conclusion you must reach a point whereby there must be a single community ruled by a self appointed authotity ... which contradicts your first paragraph, perhaps I've misunderstood.
Obviously this is not how democracy operates, the assumption is that everyone is fit to decide what is in the interests of the community and majority rules.
Problems only arise with the definition of 'community' where individuals or groups within that community attempt to define it along racial or generally discriminatory lines. It is however very simple to define a community in terms of geographical or political boundaries and accept that those living and/or working within those boundaries as being part of the community.
There is then a broader community which extends beyond political and geographical boundaries and so long as each community accepts the validity of the other communities to govern themselves as they see fit then there is no 'dangerous territory' to be had. It's not until you introduce individuals or groups who fail to accept those who are 'different' (in whatever way 'different' is defined) that any sort of danger arises.
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | William_Cleland wrote: | | Support for devolution and/or independence is usually about creating a more normal state of affairs in which the administrative and cultural autonomy of the existing set of national institutions such as the legal and education systems is matched by legislative autonomy. |
Normal? You can't be serious. |
The UK pre-1997 was far from conventional given the UK is the only major western state to have the basis of its modern constitution formed before the Enlightenment in the era when the emerging notion of the national state was still very much tied into a particular form of national church. Having three separate national legal jurisdictions ruled by a shared parliament with an unelected head of state also acting as the figurehead of the national church on a hereditary basis in most of one but not the other two national legal jurisdictions is far from normal. It would be much more normal either to have three separate independent states each doing their own thing with their own national parliaments or to have only one national legal jurisdiction based on either a centralized or federal republic run according to a written constitution. The West Lothian Question sums up why there is still some way to go until the UK is truly normal but having a separate legislature at least partially responsible for each national legal system helped to remove one of the major anomalies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | If you follow this line of thought through to it's logical conclusion you must reach a point whereby there must be a single community ruled by a self appointed authotity ... which contradicts your first paragraph, perhaps I've misunderstood. |
With all respect, I believe you have. There would seem to be no inconsistency involved in a) believing in the principle of limiting government to certain clearly defined spheres of operation and b) distrusting the arrogance of a fundamentalist minority determined to misrepresent their own personal identity crisis as being in the interests of the community.
| Quote: | | It is however very simple to define a community in terms of geographical or political boundaries and accept that those living and/or working within those boundaries as being part of the community. |
Very reasonable, yes.
| Quote: | | It's not until you introduce individuals or groups who fail to accept those who are 'different' (in whatever way 'different' is defined) that any sort of danger arises. |
That'll be where nationalism comes in then.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lewis
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's not until you introduce individuals or groups who fail to accept those who are 'different' (in whatever way 'different' is defined) that any sort of danger arises. |
That'll be where nationalism comes in then. |
So all those English people who judge the Scots as inferior are all nationalists. The thing that annoys me about you8r arguement sis you just presume all nationalists are the same.
What sort of nationalist am I that wants Scotland to have people from across the world to help us when/if we secede? Is that me saying I'm better than anyone else? No, I believe that our state would function better if it were independent. My belief is that I am no better or no worse than any person. To hold these ignorant views is an insult to your own intelligent, I am sure you are a very intelligent person, so why do you refuse to at least think about the other side. You are one of these people who form an opinion and stick to it, that's not a good thing because you get trapped in the past and frankly you can't move with society.
_________________
Hammish Independence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Quote: | | It is however very simple to define a community in terms of geographical or political boundaries and accept that those living and/or working within those boundaries as being part of the community. |
Very reasonable, yes.
| Quote: | | It's not until you introduce individuals or groups who fail to accept those who are 'different' (in whatever way 'different' is defined) that any sort of danger arises. |
That'll be where nationalism comes in then. |
No. Nationalism came in just prior to the point where you said "Very reasonable, yes." The simple truth of the matter is that a national identity arising as a form of nationalism can occur where there is co-operation with those from out with ones community / nation.
Whilst I am admittedly new to the forum (and therefore not entirely familiar with your opinions as expressed here) it seems that you are taking a very narrow view of nationalism based on the more extreme elements who label themselves as 'nationalists' where in fact they would be better labelled fascist and/or racist.
Not all nationalism need take this form and if you consider the form of nationalism espoused by the SNP government it is clear that it is very inclusive, indeed the first Asian MSP (Bashir Ahmed) is an SNP MSP.
Whilst it is obviously true that there are nationalists whose 'politics' are unsavoury at best there is also a group which is far more liberal in their views and who do not feel any threat from outside influence and are capable of discussing their nationalistic tendencies without recourse to, or even thought of, inflammatory rhetoric.
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lewis wrote: | | you just presume all nationalists are the same. |
I don't think all nationalists are the same. But they are all drinking from the same poisoned chalice, for all that some prefer to sup with a longer spoon.
| Quote: | | What sort of nationalist am I ....you get trapped in the past and frankly you can't move with society. |
I think you may have inadvertently answered your own question there.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | The simple truth of the matter is that a national identity arising as a form of nationalism can occur where there is co-operation with those from out with ones community / nation. |
When it suits, yes. But when things turn nasty, what happens with all the resentment, bravado and tribalism that nationalism feeds on and engenders? It takes centre stage.
| Quote: |
it seems that you are taking a very narrow view of nationalism |
Yes. I take the view that it is a lie. And a dangerous one at that.
| Quote: | | there is also a group which is far more liberal in their views and who do not feel any threat from outside influence and are capable of discussing their nationalistic tendencies without recourse to, or even thought of, inflammatory rhetoric. |
Hmm. That'll be rhetoric such as "making Westminster dance to a Scottish jig" will it?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lewis
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What sort of nationalist am I ....you get trapped in the past and frankly you can't move with society. |
It's funny how you can alter quotes to suit your point of view. I am saying that Nationalism suits the people of Scotland at the most in my opinion.
The thing that angers me is that you readily call people stupid because of their beliefs. We only have an opinion, and you have one too. But to say anyone is less intellectual than you because of opinion is to say you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that is the reason why we are so messed up now.
Nationalism can be very beneficial as it pulls a society who share something in common together and it gives the society a common goal. If the common goal is to ensure the best for you people then I see no problem with that.
_________________
Hammish Independence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
