Forum menu
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 .
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
Did you need much convincing that Germany was at fault for Scotland's problems in 1745? I bet not. Like putty in her hands I imagine.
I just find the accent(s) around Berwick a very interesting curiosity.
You'd think it would be somewhere between Northumbrian and southern Scots.
Bit it isn’t (to my ear anyway), it’s either or.
Another curiosity.
I was listening to England New Zealand rugby league on the way up the road yesterday.
Now if it was union I’d be vaguely supporting NZ, but I found myself supporting England in league.
Odd.
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
What did she think of the Italian prince though?
She was referring to the Hanoverians and 1745
What did she think of the Italian prince though?
He was very Bonnie apparently.
Scotroutes story was amusing. Reminded me of a time I was drinking in a pub in New Zealand with a guy from Shetland who had quite a broad accent. We were chatting to a local lady who assumed he was putting on a voice and did thought Shetland was a made up place.
His reply was "Where do ye think the effing ponies come from!"
suprisingly informed and non ranty! better than the leavers on the guardian comments but the disdain for the devolved administrations is pretty clear
tjagain
...but the disdain for the devolved administrations is pretty clear
It was ever thus in the colonies... 🙂
It was ever thus in the colonies…
Describing Scotland as a colony is hyperbole, but not so Wales. Or possibly Ireland, not sure.
Colonies usually had a government that could be over-ruled by Westminster and a governor-general to be the Westminster's representative.
Scotland has a government that can be over-ruled by Westminster and a Secy of State to be the Westminster's representative.
If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, is treated like a duck, then it's likely to be a duck. Quack 🙂
"If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, is treated like a duck, then it’s likely to be a duck. Quack"
I beg to differ.
Describing Scotland as a colony is hyperbole,
It plays to the poor oppressed victim mentality that the SNP adores.
Scotland has a government that can be over-ruled by Westminster
Except that Scotland has representation in Westminster. That's the flaw in your argument.
My point was reference to the history. Wales was military conquered then occupied. Scotland wasn't.
Colonies usually had a government that could be over-ruled by Westminster and a governor-general to be the Westminster’s representative.
Scotland has a government that can be over-ruled by Westminster and a Secy of State to be the Westminster’s representative.
If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, is treated like a duck, then it’s likely to be a duck. Quack
Colonies don't have direct representation in Westminster.
Once again stop with the oppressed card. It's in your head and does your argument no favours.
American states for example can be overruled at the federal level, as can German states. This doesn't make them colonies.
"@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."
Both are votes for sovereignty in which case it's hypocritical to criticise those who essentially voted for the same thing as you did.
Those who say we had a vote in the EU; how so?
Those who say we had a vote in the EU; how so?
You had representatives who could vote on legislation, just like you do in the UK.
It plays to the poor oppressed victim mentality that EPICYCLO adores.
FTFY
scotroutes
It plays to the poor oppressed victim mentality that EPICYCLO adores.
I expect the usual superior sneery shit from the BritNats, but that's unpleasantly personal coming from you.
For the record I do not feel oppressed, but I want to do something about oppression.
The weak and vulnerable in Scotland are living under oppressive conditions and foodbanks are burgeoning. If we can get Scotland's governance and finances in our own hands and unable to be over-ridden by Westminster, that would be a start.
But there is also the long history of oppression in Scotland of various groups and families, and much of it from our own ruling classes (before anyone thinks I'm blaming the English for it). That's the past, but there's a lesson to be learned from it, and that lesson is we need control of our own country.
The weak and vulnerable in Scotland are living under oppressive conditions and foodbanks are burgeoning. If we can get Scotland’s governance and finances in our own hands and unable to be over-ridden by Westminster, that would be a start.
But this is happening all over the UK. You don't seem bothered when it happens to anyone in England, because they aren't Scottish. Now, you could say that 'oh but England is Tory' and yes, that's true, but only by virtue of that invisible line that is as I've said is so arbitrary.
The poor of England who have voted for left wing parties do not deserve to be kept weak and vulnerable any more than those in Scotland do. But you're willing to wash your hands of those on this side of the line because others on the same side of the line voted for it.
Both are votes for sovereignty in which case it’s hypocritical to criticise those who essentially voted for the same thing as you did.
Those who say we had a vote in the EU; how so?
EU membership doesn't affect the sovereignty of the member countries.
If you think the UK has surrendered its sovereignty to the EU, how are we going to leave? Logically it must be impossible, surely?