You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We’ve seen from this & other threads how much some Scottish people are enthralled by fantastic virtuousness of a bunch of people who co-incidentally just happen to be born in the same country as them.
Folk like Mike Russell and Stuart McMillan?
Nationalism is just a wish for self-determinism.
That's tautological. You've used the word 'self' because you are assuming that everyone born within the invisible lines has some sort of common aim or connection. Which is nationalism, and it's bollocks.
They often do have a common aims and connection through language, music, literature, religion etc. This isn't radical stuff, of course some national movements have very nasty elements, but that is not a requirement. What you describe as invisible lines were once natural obstacles, which weren't so easily surmounted as they are now, so it is not bollocks, it is reality - reality that deniers have often found has bit them on the bum.
They often do have a common aims and connection through language, music, literature, religion etc.
Typing this in the Netherlands. Which teaches you a few things about national identity. Also was in Scotland earlier in the year, I noticed quite a lot of shared language and culture. Then there are countries with different languages and cultures inside the invisible lines. And most countries are recent inventions anyway made up of all sorts of groups and regions. Then there are all the people who share the same country, culture and language but have radically different aims.
So yeah nationalism is still bollocks. Learn some history maybe.
I know a reasonable amount about history, I also know a reasonable amount about the Netherlands as I have lived there a couple of times, so I would be most interested to find out what you have learnt from your sojourn there about Dutch Nationalism. I am not sure why you are bringing up Scotland, it clearly has a Nationalist movement which want self-determinism. So I am struggling to see how your argument has progressed from "its bollocks", which I am afraid to say I find remarkably unenlightening, although it does have the merit of succinctness.
nationalist
1. a person who advocates political independence for a country.
"a Scottish nationalist"
a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others.
Mefty - dissonance - I take it neither of you live in Scotland?
Quite hostly some of you mutterings on this are pretty offensive and have zero relationship with the truth
Its not about a perceived superiority by accident of birthplace. For starters the people of scotland do not have to be born here.
There are two main threads IMO to the people who want independence. the ideological who simply believe a country like scotland should rule its own affairs and the pragmatists who believe an independent scotland would be abetter country to live in
Its so obvious you have a little Englander cast and simply do not understand the scots civic nationalism
The difference in political and civic outlook is obvious to those of us who have lived in both countries. Yes there is some overlap of course but the central or average position is very different as is obvuious from the voting patterns.
One key thing - in the independence campaign we were told that anindependenct scotland would have no more influence the EU that any other small country. We all shrugged and thought - that sounds about right.
Attitudes in the average are very different. Its a simple fact as demonstrated in many way. You may not want to see it 'cos it hurts your little englander pride. that does not mean it does not exist.
Mefty - I have made no such suggestion, not intentionally anyway, on this thread.
The link I posted went back as far as 2012 and shows a slow but definite collapse in Brexit support.
Now as far as the Brexit thread goes (which is as you will notice another thread) the trend is still valid.
Only 8% of the swing is post June 2016 agreed (though that is not insignificant really, Curtice questions the reasons for the swing more than the swing), however the more interesting point is that June 2016 looks like about the last point the Brexies could have railroaded the country into Brexit.
They’d been losing share for a long time and they haven’t recovered yet - which given they wo we lost and there is a tendency for people to pull together after these things is surprising.
But there it is.
Now stop using short run data when it doesn’t suit your argument. You are better than that done if the time.
There are two main threads IMO to the people who want Brexit. the ideological who simply believe a country like The UK should rule its own affairs and the pragmatists who believe an The UK would be abetter country to live in
Don't agree of course, but what is sauce for the goose...
<p>The difference in political and civic outlook is obvious to those of us who have lived in both countries. Yes there is some overlap of course but the central or average position is very different as is obvuious from the voting patterns.</p>
<p>In your own words - bullshine.</p><p>I don't see any of those differences between my peers on either side of the border, of course the fact I'm (roughly) half your age probably has a lot to do with that.</p>
Attitudes in the average are very different. Its a simple fact as demonstrated in many way. You may not want to see it ‘cos it hurts your little englander pride. that does not mean it does not exist.
As usual you fail to engage with the argument dissonance was making about how the data doesn't support this Scottish exceptionalism that you suggest, and there are pretty good reasons why two populations with same outlook has different government's and policies. We could delve into this further, citing Iceland's energy policy and other esoteric things. However, there is no point because you will never engage with the argument because you never do. You just say the same thing again and again getting more abusive, so my TJ Bingo Card is ready, Little Englander is crossed out, just need racist, bigot, misogynist and mentally ill to be able to call "House"
As usual you simply fail to understand the position. the data is clear. Social attitudes are different and your closed mind and lack of any knowledge does not allow you to see that. Again - the data is very clear and obvious . Look at voting records.
Again with the insults and false representation of my poisition
Its not scots exceptionalism. thats a false statement because its not an argument I made
Its just there are clear and obvious differences.
So go on Mefty - what is your first hand knowledge of Scotland and its attitudes to civic questions?
Igm - I am perplexed, you are clearly alluding to an instance where I have used short run data to support an argument which you have a bee in your bonnet about. I am pretty certain I haven't done on this thread, maybe you have confused me with someone else. Otherwise you must be alluding to some other instance, which, as is obvious I assumed to be the Brexit thread - I don't propose to go into that - the arguments have been rehearsed and there is little new. As it appears that is an incorrect assumption, could you be a bit blunter.
Classic from you mefty. Claim I have a position I do not have then rubbish that position that I do not hold on the basis of zero data.
dissonance passim
Mefty - no bees, no bonnets. Actually I recognise a lot of the tactics I would use to get a argument over the line in the way you are presenting stuff on here and also on the Brexit thread (fair play, I’m not exactly whiter than white). And I don’t disagree with everything you say. However...
You are arguing (or at least you appear to be) that long run data on social attitudes is the way to go, but that I am using short run data that doesn’t support my argument on Brexit attitudes. Now both long and short run data have their place, but longer run data does support my argument on Brexit (I think we can agree that) and the short run data certainly doesn’t support a counter-argument.
I’m merely suggesting you are picking data selectively to support or otherwise the argument you choose to see me making. If longer run data on attitudes makes sense for one then it probably makes sense for the other - and the oh but it’s different argument is merely an assertion that needs substantiating.
When all is said to be fair, you are displaying no more or less than the confirmation bias that is so prevalent these days - and in fact the Curtice piece you quoted was alluding to (though I don’t recall that he mentioned it specifically).
And I’m sure I could be accused of the same.
On the nationalism thing, it is worth differentiating better a national pride (we’re pure dead gallus, us) and a nationalism (we’re better than them, they’re inferior).
The former wishes to take its brilliance and gift it freely to the world, absorbing in return things from other places that are equally pure dead gallus.
The latter wishes to impose its view of the world on the rest of the world.
You can form your own views on which is outward looking, about creation and building bridges and which is about isolation and destruction.
Self determination can exist in either of course
Perchy you forgot the right to roam.
Meanwhile, seeing as we're talking about nationalism now:
You are arguing (or at least you appear to be) that long run data on social attitudes is the way to go, but that I am using short run data that doesn’t support my argument on Brexit attitudes. Now both long and short run data have their place, but longer run data does support my argument on Brexit (I think we can agree that) and the short run data certainly doesn’t support a counter-argument.
You are missing one element from my argument. The long run data on Social Attitudes is a very good indicator of differences between attitudes between age group, regions etc. Its relevance to this discussion is that the data doesn't indicate significant regional differences and never has, which some people believe exist. However as a predictor of political results, it is completely useless because you have to layer on the "political noise" - this is why I described it as a non-partisan survey. So it has two strengths, its long term and its ability to strip out the "political noise" to get to what people really think, rather than vote for.
When looking at a single issue like Brexit, you have to take into account the political noise because you are looking to determine how the country would vote, therefore it tends to be more volatile. Generally we see opinion polls reverting to the status quo when an election is imminent (the last election being a significant exception) and my guess, and it is no more than that, is that the big compression in the Brexit figures was caused by the possibility of a referendum - when did Cameron make his big speech? - and ever since then they have been bouncing around 50% as near as dammit.
Mefty - I have no problem with the social attitudes survey - though there is always a problem that in a survey there’s no skin in the game. And while the long run helps with that to some extent, even then it will be subject at some level to fashionable posturing that doesn’t reflect attitudes that one would actually stand by if it cost in any way - a noise layer would be a good description. So yes it probably reflects societal attitudes; it may not reflect individual attitudes as people will say things to fit in, to be socially acceptable, that they do not believe and would not stand by. (Remember McDonalds and salads - which may be apocryphal of course)
I think you are probably going to run into the observer influencing the observed at some point here because even that is a social contract. People fib.
There is no social contract in a blind ballot, though there is a question of how we envisage ourselves and so arguably how people vote is a good indicator of true beliefs and attitudes.
The rest of your argument is an “oh but it’s different” assertion linked to a not impossible, but completely unsubstantiated, reason for the loss of support for Brexit that is definitely there.
Ok fair enough you call it a guess.
Oh and Mefty, my father’s work on the subject (he was relatively eminent in his field, held a very similar Professorship at Strathclyde prior to Curtice, then at Glasgow - his views have some weight) suggested there is very little difference in core beliefs and attitudes between the Scots and the English. There was some difference in their expression on nationalism and there was a desire to be different (eg English football fans wreck foreign cities so Scots ones will be the sort of fan you’d invite back to meet the family - but beware it may not be real).
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what you say merely with the way you are making your argument.
The problem with nationalism is it generally comes down to division, its 'us' and 'them' which is not a cooperative social attitude in a single country or for neighbours.
I'm not saying Scottish independence is a bad idea, with planning i'm sure it could work well. But if its just 'toys out the pram and unicorns to the border' like brexit then it will help no one.
From the Irish Times
"It’s time to think about the unthinkable – a disintegrated UK, a reignition of the Troubles"
so I would be most interested to find out what you have learnt from your sojourn there about Dutch Nationalism
Nothing about Dutch nationalism - just nationalism in general.
I'm struck by the number of Dutch words that are similar to English. But not just modern English, it's full of echoes of archaic terms, which to me serves to highlight our shared heritage, and how close the Anglo Saxons were to the Dutch. Then looking around Amsterdam I can see similarities between the buildings there and 17th century buildings in the UK, which makes me think of the Glorious revolution and the Dutch as religious allies.
If you wanted to create national boundaries based on shared heritage and culture you'd have the country of greater Anglia which would cover South-Eastern Britain and parts of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Wales, North-Western England and parts of Scotland would be different countries and North Eastern England would also be part of Denmark.
The Netherlands is a relatively new country like much of Europe as I'm sure you know, and to me the fact that nations come and go when people stay the same, that highlights how nationhood has been ephemeral in so much of history. How can you pin your sense of identity on something that can change at the stroke of a pen or a sword? It makes no sense. Your shared identity is cultural, not national. In much of the world the two things are separate. So it shouldn't matter which country you belong to - just which culture.
As for countries being based on natural borders - that's nonsense, IMO. Sure, there are borders that follow rivers, but so what? There are many more rivers that AREN'T borders (including the two biggest in the UK being either well within the English border or crossing it with impunity). So why choose that particular river? It's because that's a convenient shorthand for the extent of one king's power versus another's. Nationalism is all about the results of conquests. It's fundamentally got nothing to do with people, but those in power had to forge national identity within their borders purely as a means of consolidating their power and territorial claims. Basically, you've been used.
Whist the current constitution is relatively new, the shape of the Netherlands isn't that much different from that of the Dutch Republic that dates back to the 16th Century. But your thesis seems to be the past was created by dreadful rulers and therefore we can all get along because we are all the same. But I would suggest you are the one ignoring history because those conflicts etc create a shared experience for the nation state and leave legacies behind.
Napolean left behind the civil legal system as he did across much of Europe. Occupation by the Nazis, which was brutal (my father was part of the liberating forces and what he witnessed scarred him for life), likewise has a huge effect on the national psyche, which one of the first things that struck me when I lived there. As a result, you get a country historically divided by religion (the North was protestant, the south was catholic) that still pulls together. The extent of which first struck me when the National Soccer side were playing in one of the big tournaments - everyone seemed to wearing some orange in support of the team and over 80% of the population watched some of the games - viewing figures that are unheard in this country for any event.
Of course, we had our Dutch king, William of Orange, we are still living with some of the legacies of his reign.
But I would suggest you are the one ignoring history because those conflicts etc create a shared experience for the nation state
Only where the nation state persists. What about all those people who died fighting for Austro-Hungary? Where is there shared experience now? It evaporated along with that empire, as did countless other allegiances and shared experiences all over history. If you go back far enough everything changes - now we have Scottish nationalists against Britain, but if you go back far enough pre-Saxon settlement we are all British anyway so why should we not be united? The Scottish border is only the extent of some ancient King's power, nothing more.
What will happen to a shared sense of 'Britishness' if the UK breaks up?
How do you square your idea of nationalism with people who were born and brought up within a nation state but want to be part of another e.g. Republicans in Northern Ireland?
If you wanted to create national boundaries based on shared heritage and culture you’d have the country of greater Anglia which would cover South-Eastern Britain and parts of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Wales, North-Western England and parts of Scotland would be different countries and North Eastern England would also be part of Denmark.
I think people should be free to self govern at the level they choose, rather than being forced to align with bigger historical groups, so I don't have an objection in principle to an independent Northern England or an independent Shetland, if that's what the population of those areas collectively agrees to. I don't think this means the world would splinter into every smaller units, because in most cases you will naturally reach a position where most people feel they have representative government, and further subdivision would be a net disadvantage.
As for countries being based on natural borders – that’s nonsense, IMO.
A lot of nations are based on natural borders because those borders had a practical influence on things like transport, settlement, trade and industry. There is a very real physical border between Scotland and England, for example, with a lot of sparsely inhabited hill country that is still only crossed by a relatively small number of major transport routes.
The argument about people identifying with a nationality because of an accident of the location they were born in is also too simplistic. If you visit Edinburgh, for example, you'll find a large number of people identifying as Scots who were not born in Scotland, but have chosen to make a life there because they enjoy living in the country.
What will happen to a shared sense of ‘Britishness’ if the UK breaks up?
Does it matter what happens?
I don’t think this means the world would splinter into every smaller units, because in most cases you will naturally reach a position where most people feel they have representative government, and further subdivision would be a net disadvantage.
Ah but, people are not rational. So you might get people saying 'yeah we hate those star-bellied sneetches, so we want to separate ourselves from them, they are so awful' even though both the star bellied sneetches and the ones without actually help each other economically. See Brexit. People can harm themselves socially and economically for reasons that turn out to be worthless.
There is a very real physical border between Scotland and England,
You are retro-justifying the border. There are sparsely populated hill areas all over the British Isles, so why is *THAT* one the Scottish border? Why are do all the other sparsely populated hill areas all over Scotland constitute one country despite being made up of different cultures and linguistic groups? Because after they gave up years of fighting over Northumbria and Northern England that's where the dust settled.
The argument about people identifying with a nationality because of an accident of the location they were born in is also too simplistic. If you visit Edinburgh, for example, you’ll find a large number of people identifying as Scots who were not born in Scotland, but have chosen to make a life there because they enjoy living in the country.
This is the same point as I am making I think.
There is a very real physical border between Scotland and England
When wars moved the border, were they moving it somewhere more "real" or "physicial"?
Apart from island states, borders are mainly political, not geographical. That's an important "apart from" when looking at how "we" Brits think of our country/countries… we forget our borders are chosen by politicans and monarchs and/or fought over.
We’ve seen from this & other threads how much some Scottish people are enthralled by fantastic virtuousness of a bunch of people who co-incidentally just happen to be born in the same country as them.
This is yet another false premise from someone who does not understand
" Its not where I come from as a person that matters, its where we are going as a country"
Bashir Ahmed. Born in parkistan, MSP for the SNP, first muslim to be elected to holyrood
This is one of the differences between the civic nationalism of the SNP and most scottish independence advocates and the blood and soil nationalism its often confused with by the ignorant. Incomers are welcome, Its nothing to do with your country of birth, its all about a shared identity and a willingness to make this a great country
There is a very real physical border between Scotland and England
I know it doesn't exactly follow the line of the modern border, but it's not unrealistic to say that if Hadrian hadn't built his wall then we probably would never ended up with modern Scotland and England. It could be argued that that physical boundary embedded the notion of two different parts of our island. We could easily have ended up as one big nation (ie Great Britain) or split into several eg Cornwall, Wales, East Anglia, Northumberland, the Highlands and so on.
The idea that there is any sort of significant difference between the Scots and the English is nonsense.
Incomers are welcome, Its nothing to do with your country of birth, its all about a shared identity and a willingness to make this a great country
The person I know who is most proud of being Scottish (never shuts up about it) was born in South Africa. To be fair, whenever I've visited him, it's been clear why he thinks that way… everywhere he's lived has been ace, and full of amazing people.
Now, I know people in England that feel much the same way about being English… despite being born abroad.
But if you are the wrong sort of "foreign born", things are getting more tricky in many parts of Britain, for sure. And English nationalism & NI unionism are adding to this far more than any movements to change the status of Scotland within, or outwith, the Union. Sorry for leaving out Wales…
I was born outside the UK, and only at a push would I consider myself more "English" then "British", but that's partly from growing up near the Welsh border, and identifying with what that great country has to offer in my youth.
Wales never feels like another country to me… some parts of England still do (and Scotland also). But I'm an alien when I visit Wales, as far as the locals as concerned, there's never any doubt about that!
Nothing is simple, but some wish it was. National identity is a different mix for every individual, but there so many flags you can wave and briefly pretend otherwise, which can be either a warm welcoming experience, or a blunt and nasty one.
As for countries being based on natural borders – that’s nonsense, IMO.
Plenty are - look at a mountain range and you'll often have a border. There's a pretty good reason why India and China tend to leave each other alone...
If there is no difference in attitudes why the huge difference in voting patterns? from the brexit referendum to westminster elections Scotland on average votes very differently to England
62 % remain v 60% leave
40% tory compared to 20% tory? etc etc ( figures from memory)
those of you who claim there is no difference please explain this
I see other major differences as well. a much greater % of nurses are men in Scotland compared to women ( from personal experience - no stats)
There’s a pretty good reason why India and China tend to leave each other alone…
Look at India's other borders…
Nothing natural about them. All political. What a mess. Most borders are chosen by politicans and monarchs, and/or fought over.
Are the Scots who voted for independance from Britain those that are bemoaning the equivalent vote to leave the EU I wonder...
"
If there is no difference in attitudes why the huge difference in voting patterns? from the brexit referendum to westminster elections Scotland on average votes very differently to England
62 % remain v 60% leave"
Sucks being in a union which you have no say in don't it...
@patriotpro, if you honestly don't understand the difference between being a member of the EU, and being part of the UK, I'd be surprised.
If you are using the leave vs remain figures to claim there's a big difference between the Scots and English then you could equally claim differences between different parts of England, and different parts of Scotland. I suspect the main reason for the difference in voting patterns is down to the fact many leave voters are anti-immigration, and the difference there is because there has been large scale immigration in part of England that you don't see in Scotland. Were the two countries similar in that respect then you would see the same (often rather nasty) attitudes from the Scots. Look at the terrible way many Irish were treated when they came over to the west of Scotland in the 19th century and compare that to attitudes in some parts of working class England today. We really have little to be smug about.
Historically social attitudes in the two countries are very similar. One of the things I find repugnant is the sense of "We're better than you" when it comes to many in the Scottish nationalist movement.
Yes there are some differences (very few south of the border ever acquire a taste for tablet and Irn-Bru which is bizarre) but overall the differences tend to reflect varying conditions rather than any underlying superiority.
I suspect the main reason for the difference in voting patterns is down to the fact many leave voters are anti-immigration, and the difference there is because there has been large scale immigration in part of England that you don’t see in Scotland.
Areas of England with higher levels of immigration voted Remain.
Sucks being in a union which you have no say in don’t it…
We did have a say and we made our feelings quite clear 4 years ago.
Except the UK did actually have a say in the EU .
Are the Scots who voted for independance from Britain those that are bemoaning the equivalent vote to leave the EU I wonder…
this is a very interesting point
It appears that a significant number of SNP voters voted no in the independence referendum and also a significant number of people voted yes in the independence referendum in order to leave the EU
There are a series of conundrums like this. It appears that the pro UK and pro EU folk have moved to support independence in similar numbers to those who stopped supporting independence as its now more likely an independent scotland will remain in the EU.
Are the Scots who voted for independance from Britain those that are bemoaning the equivalent vote to leave the EU I wonder…
this is a very interesting point
It appears that a significant number of SNP voters voted no in the independence referendum and also a significant number of people voted yes in the independence referendum in order to leave the EU
There are a series of conundrums like this. It appears that the pro UK and pro EU folk have moved to support independence in similar numbers to those who stopped supporting independence as its now more likely an independent scotland will remain in the EU.
If there is no difference in attitudes why the huge difference in voting patterns?
You're looking at it backwards. You're taking the existing borders and observing the difference in voting to use as an argument for English cohesion, however the stats are lumping all the English in together already.
You could come up with different stats to divvy up the country in different ways. You could say that London and the Home Counties should be a different country as they voted leave. You could say you should split North Wales and South Wales because one votes Tory and the other Labour. You could split Scotland down the middle based on Gaelic vs Scots.
Not to mention leavers voted leave for lots of different reasons, so you are really grouping people with lots of different sentiments and world views together.
Are the Scots who voted for independance from Britain those that are bemoaning the equivalent vote to leave the EU I wonder…
this is a very interesting point
It appears that a significant number of SNP voters voted no in the independence referendum and also a significant number of people voted yes in the independence referendum in order to leave the EU
There are a series of conundrums like this. It appears that the pro UK and pro EU folk have moved to support independence in similar numbers to those who stopped supporting independence as its now more likely an independent scotland will remain in the EU.
Molgrips - correct me if I am wrong but I don't think any english region had the same % of remain as scotland did on average and again IIRC no scots region voted leave
yes you could draw other boundaries and say this region voted differently to this region. However this is an existing border and the differences in attitudes ON AVERAGE each side of it are clearly different
Molgrips – correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think any english region had the same % of remain as scotland did on average and again IIRC no scots region voted leave
Bristol did. Manchester and London were similar. Isn't London's population bigger than Scotland's?
No region quite topped Scotland, although London was only just behind it in terms of remain support. Oh, but we keep getting told that London is politically a million miles away from Scotland (despite it voting Labour and Remain).
Only one of the top ten council areas voting remain is Scottish (Edinburgh, in 10th place).
To treat England as a homogenous leave voting area, based on somewhat arbitrary political boundaries is a little naive. The same is true of treating Scotland as a single entity. Is Haringey (75% remain) really politically closer to Boston (75% leave) than anywhere in Scotland?
What will happen to a shared sense of ‘Britishness’ if the UK breaks up?
what makes britishness sacrosanct?
And why is being pro British not nationalism?
Molgrips
I am just replying to your reply to my post as I drafted a reply in my head but then got pulled off to sort some things out - so read it in that context.
First, Austro-Hungarian Empire, I presume you don't know much about its history. It was never really a centralised empire, different branches of the junior Habsburg family had their different fiefdoms which together comprised a huge area. The senior Habsburg family at the time of the split ruling over Spain (and its other territories). Various attempts were made to centralise in during the 18th and, more assiduously in the 19th Century, but they never really "stuck" and its fundamental instability was a major factor in the First World War, following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. This is all a long winded way of saying it didn't really exist as a nation state for very long, its constituents Austria, Hungary etc etc have though.
Second, what impact would Scottish independence has, I have no idea but I would suggest devolution has probably made the Scottish identity more pronounced.
Third, Northern Ireland. well obviously people who live one side of a line may feel more pull to the people on the other side than those on the other. I am not saying no border is undisputed, but often people within those borders have a shared identity through the experience of history etc.
I first questioned you saying Nationalism is a bad thing, I don't think it is good or bad, it just exists and leaders who don't recognise that will cause problems.
Ah but, people are not rational
Of course they are not rational, but the subdivision of national entities does tend to be self limiting for obvious practical reasons.
You are retro-justifying the border. There are sparsely populated hill areas all over the British Isles, so why is *THAT* one the Scottish border?
Hadrian obviously sited his wall along a line that separates the Southern Uplands and the Pennines and is the shortest coast to coast distance between two major river estuaries. Over history, the border has moved to its current day position, but it is still in the same general area. There are lots of different factors that have determined the current position of our national borders, but I don't think many people would deny that physical geography is an important influence for many nations.
This is the same point as I am making I think
I'm making the point that nationalism is not about blind adherence to the belief your birthplace is superior, and some people have actively chosen to identify with a nationality other than their birth country. Is that the point you are making?
When wars moved the border, were they moving it somewhere more “real” or “physicial”?
Apart from island states, borders are mainly political, not geographical. That’s an important “apart from” when looking at how “we” Brits think of our country/countries… we forget our borders are chosen by politicans and monarchs and/or fought over.
Borders are always ultimately political, but you can't deny the influence of physical geography on how those political decision play out. Why are China going to enormous efforts to build structures on insignificant atolls in the ocean?
The idea that there is any sort of significant difference between the Scots and the English is nonsense
But it's clearly not nonsense to say that there are many significant differences between the nations of Scotland and England, is it?
It's amusing to see the contortions being gone through to deny nationhood to Scotland.
Try telling one of our Unionists that he's not Scottish and Scotland is not a nation - but best take TJ with you for running repairs, those are a fiery lot.
I presume you don’t know much about its history
No, you're right - I just picked it as an example of a European entity for which people fought that subsequently disappeared.
I first questioned you saying Nationalism is a bad thing, I don’t think it is good or bad, it just exists and leaders who don’t recognise that will cause problems.
I agree it exists. However I am saying that it has no rational basis. It is used to divide people, to create a barrier between 'us' and 'them'. And whenever there's a 'them' it brings out the very worst in people. That's why I support the EU, because it is an exercise in turning 'them' into 'us'.
Public opinion can be shaped, and often is. That's the purpose of public debate. It is shaped by events but also by people. A country can become more or less nationalistic, as we've seen. Nationalism clearly exists, but I cannot see a reason to promote it.
National (or regional) identity on the other hand, that's fine. Keep your local language, your dialect, your music or traditions. These things enrich us. But do we really need to surround those things with political boundaries? With hard borders? Do we need to exclude those with a different identity? This is what nationalism does, in my view, and I see it as very negative. My argument on this thread is to say that political boundaries are largely arbitrary which is why they are meaningless. By all means keep your identity - but that means recognising how close we are to our cousins across the North Sea and our metaphorical relatives by marriage across the channel.
It is used to divide people, to create a barrier between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Not the civic natuionalism of the SNP. As an englishborn with a very English name and accent living in Scotland anti english racism is much much less than it used to be despite the rise of the SNP from the political fringes to the government in that time
Thats at least in part because of the constant mentions of inclusiveness and openness. Scots nationalism has become much more benign in that way over the 40+ years I have lived in Scotland.
Molgrips - do you regard your love for your family irrational or rational?
My argument on this thread is to say that political boundaries are largely arbitrary which is why they are meaningless. By all means keep your identity – but that means recognising how close we are to our cousins across the North Sea and our metaphorical relatives by marriage across the channel.
But why should that be wrapped up in a british nationalist context for ever more? why is british nationalism untouchable?
It also seems to me that Europe is already too dominated by larger countries as it is anyhow. The EU would be better served if it was made up of a lot more smaller constituent parts, rather than be dominated by, Germany, France, and the UK(despite protestations to the contrary over the years).
To me it makes absolute sense that most european countries should break up in to smaller parts if the overriding nature is to be a european identity(something I wholly agree with).
For me it should be Scotland - EU, not Scotland - UK - EU, that just seems like an unnecessary step, we can speak for ourselves. Particularly when you are consistently told, sit down shut up and let the adults do the talking(evidenced by the last 1.5 years of negotiations with the EU.)
seosamh77
I am with you on that. I believe units of around 5-15 million people are a good size for governance with the big stuff like macro economics and defence done by unions of these units.
May European countries would happily split. Italy into 2 or 3, Germany into 3 or 4, Belgium has a splitist movement as does the Netherlands
France is one of the few European countries that seems to really be a unitary state bar the Basques would like thir mountain kingdom back
Molgrips – do you regard your love for your family irrational or rational?
Rational, because of evolutionary biology. But I see where you are going with this and it still doesn't disprove my point.
Yes, shared cultural experience is a real and important thing, but that does not necessarily correspond to national boundaries. To you as (presumably) a Brit or Englishman it does, because England has been a cohesive insular entity for so long so the political borders are broadly the same as the societal ones.
But is a Northumbrian hill farmer closer culturally to a London East Ender, or a hill farmer from the Scottish Borders, because of that invisible line?
Seosamh's federal Europe made up of older regions rather than modern States is beginning to make a lot of sense to me. Especially from a Welsh perspective. Wales would develop hugely in terms of self respect and confidence.
France is one of the few European countries that seems to really be a unitary state bar the Basques would like thir mountain kingdom back
Curiously France is the state which went to the greatest effort to eliminate the earlier kingdoms which made it up. A good effort was made at the time of the revolution and then continued from there. In terms of language the other Langues d'oil variants and the occitan languages were fairly ruthlessly stamped out.<i></i>
I am not sure the choice of the Scots border is that useful as we are still a United Kingdom and have been for a very long time. A more apposite question would be whether someone on the Dutch German border (if you go into the old beer halls in Dusseldorf, the language/dialect is much more recognizable to a Dutch speaker than German, which they are all pretty fluent in anyway) has more affinity to those across the border than, say, Amsterdammers. Based on my experience, my guess would be they would still favour the Amsterdammers, but would treat Germans far better than the Amsterdammers would. When I first lived there, it was de rigeur to send Germans in the wrong direction when asking directions.
I am partially descended from Northumbrian hill farmers by the way.
Hadrian obviously sited his wall along a line that separates the Southern Uplands and the Pennines and is the shortest coast to coast distance between two major river estuaries.
Somewhat off-topic, but it always impresses me that the Romans knew that was the narrowest point, given the technology they had available.
It’s amusing to see the contortions being gone through to deny nationhood to Scotland.
You mean contortions such as a democratic referendum? Yup, hilarious.
Most Northumbria and Scottish hill farmers sitting either side of the cheviot would probably consider themselves Borderers. Chuck that in the mix.
The debatable lands....
Another interesting article in the Irish Times:
if you go into the old beer halls in Dusseldorf, the language/dialect is much more recognizable to a Dutch speaker than German
I am partially descended from Northumbrian hill farmers by the way.
Ever go to Berwick, you old Northumbrian you?
Berwick accents are interesting. There are two distinct ones as you wander about.
Not sure I have a point - just an observation.
Somewhat off-topic, but it always impresses me that the Romans knew that was the narrowest point
<span class="comment-copy">Antonine was an even better choice so clearly wasnt a chance. When you look how the ordnance survey originally worked though so long as you have some basic skills and manpower you can go a long way. </span>
The skill displayed in planning aquaducts and similar projects really show just how good the Romans had got at large scale infrastructure.
The debatable lands….
A lot of happy reivers were really pissed off when James the 1st and 6th knackered their traditional law dodging method of going "oh I am Scottish, wait you are a Scottish Warden? bugger you look English. I mean long live England!"
The Reivers were quite "canny" about loyalty, location and allegiances. They operated in a land/space that had little to do with Nations.
I think if the Reivrers had a vote on Brexit they would have asked "which side makes the most profit for me" for them ideology was " bollocks" maybe we all need to focus on "profit" (quality of life) and less on ideology which by the way has always been the privilege of the well off.
I think if the Reivrers had a vote on Brexit they would have asked “which side makes the most profit for me”
For the traditional reivers I think it would have been "which option will bugger up law enforcements ability to chase me the most". So brexit I reckon.
“profit” (quality of life)
The problem there is even if we interpret profit as being overall quality of life at least in some case serious disruption will prove rather profitable. Going back to our borderers it was shite for many but for a subset it really was the best option and I have no doubt they given a choice they would have voted against James getting both crowns. It depends on who is getting the controlling vote. Unfortunately at the moment it seems to be mostly those true patriots like Lawson, home in France, and Farage, trying to build his career in the USA, and Boris, enough cash not to worry so long as he has a shot at PM.
Mmm my Ancestors would have slit the throats of those "true" patriots and hoyed them in Liddle Water....
My ancestors (historical family lineage) did slit the throats of those loyal to the crown/parliament when they came to lay claim on their land and impose taxes, unfortunately it didn't do them much good as an army was then sent that slaughtered all the men/boys and raped/burned all the women/children...needless to say i've got a chip on my shoulder that is not for shifting generations later.
I met a lassie in a pub in Portree who told me she hadn't forgiven the Germans for the war.
She was referring to the Hanoverians and 1745.....
Ever go to Berwick, you old Northumbrian you?
Nope and I don't think I have spent more than 48 hours in Northumberland, I have no pretensions to understanding that history, both my sister and only first cousin might do, but history is their thing. I only mentioned it because of Molgrp's "misstep" on Austro- Hungary, which I had the benefit of briefly studying at school.
Through my roots. I am also half Welsh, but I don't have any particular affinity to that nation, I do have an affinity to Yorkshire where my father was brought up, but I wouldn't dream of describing myself as a Yorkshire-man. However, I do support the Yorkshire cricket team and Huddersfield Town, as does my daughter, bless her, and my dog, but who else would a dog support other than the Terriers .