Alex Salmond to let 16-year-olds vote in bid to secure independence

[jimmy olsen]

Why should we give any validity to the concept of the nation state. Human governments should not be founded on the basis of ethnic groups.

Really?  Since when?  Why isn't a cultural or ethnic group a valid difference?  Why is there a border between the various Central and South American countries?  They all speak spanish, save for one whose language is Portuguese, close enough, imho.  Why not one single country there?  Since a human government shouldn't be founded on the basis of ethnic groups (and presumably, cultural groups) I don't see a problem.

If I was God for a day it would be.

In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.

[Valmy]

The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country.  No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically.  Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians.  Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.

No I think countries work best when formed by basic principles of government.  The Canadians are not really on board with how we run our country and our central values and likewise.  Even though we are very culturally similar.

My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action.  And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability.  After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.

[viper37]

That makes no sense.  A smaller country would necessarily be more centralized and why would no groups dominate in a smaller country?  Certainly a group will dominate but that group should be based on its political agenda not on its touting of some ethnicity.  Nationalists create conflict by creating groups around what people are, not what they believe.

If a state is as mono-cultural as possible, including religion where it matters, it makes things easier.

Different communities tend to have different priorities.  And altough in theory everyone should work together toward a unique goal, it's not that easy in practice.  The Tutsis and the Huttus were merged in one country. I don't think it worked that well.  They saw themselves as different, one group had power more often than not, it led to conflict, then genocide.

Serbia is a prime example of how nationalism can create violence and conflict where none really needed to take place.  Besides Serbia was a very small country.  Heck please explain the vast cultural difference between Montenegro and Serbia?  Besides the country itself was created to be a nation state and thus had that poison pill already firmly in its mouth at birth.

Montenegro remained part of Yugoslavia with Serbia for a while.  A better example would be Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia.  Where these people better together?  Should NATO have bombed the Kosovars and Bosnians into submission, for their own goods?

And why was that?   

Abuse by the central power?  No freedom or religion?  Slaughters? Historical grudged with a people seeing themselves as inherantly superior to the other cultures?
Pick one.  There are possibly many others.

[Malthus]

The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country.  No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically.  Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians.  Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.

No I think countries work best when formed by basic principles of government.  The Canadians are not really on board with how we run our country and our central values and likewise.  Even though we are very culturally similar.

My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action.  And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability.  After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.

Way to wave the red flag to the Quebec nationalism bull. 

[viper37]

My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action.  And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability.  After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.

This is closer to the French definition.  The english text of wikipedia, is, as alwyas, more fleshed out than the french one.  They seperate nationalism in multiple forms, here's the first one:
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[26] Ernest Renan[27] and John Stuart Mill[28] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[29] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[30]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).

Nationalism is being proud of what you are, and you define what you are by your culture, you heritage, you country's history.  The people of the land share a difference with other groups just as much as the individual has a difference with the larger group.

[HVC]

Way to wave the red flag to the Quebec nationalism bull. 

i think a referendum is coming soon. every week there's a new free Quebec thread (or hijack to the same )

[viper37]

i think a referendum is coming soon. every week there's a new free Quebec thread (or hijack to the same )

There won't be a referendum in my life time, that I am sure of.  I won't say never, because I honestly don't know what will happen in 100 years from now, but for the foreseeable future, it's not gonna happen.  Even with the Royal fetish or our new govt and the celebrations of 1812 as Canada's foundation (and I got laughed at for quoting that from a journalist...).

[MadImmortalMan]

This is closer to the French definition.  The english text of wikipedia, is, as alwyas, more fleshed out than the french one.  They seperate nationalism in multiple forms, here's the first one:
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[26] Ernest Renan[27] and John Stuart Mill[28] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[29] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[30]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).

Nationalism is being proud of what you are, and you define what you are by your culture, you heritage, you country's history.  The people of the land share a difference with other groups just as much as the individual has a difference with the larger group.

What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.

[viper37]

In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.

So you can see the logic in a greater Saudi Arabia that would include Israel?  'Cause I don't.  Of course you prevent war!  Duh.  It's not a war when you slaughter civilians who won't fit the mold.  WWII started in 1939, but before that, there were no casualties?  C'mon.  You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it.  But you?

Look at Europe.  They're trying for a big country.  With lots of different people.  They so wanted this big country, for peace&prosperity that they closed their eyes on Greece cheating in its entry application.  It was more important to build the foundation of a new country than to ask questions on how Greece solve its debt&deficit problem in 2 years.  Look where they are now.  They're even dragging us with them.

[Sheilbh]

What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.

I disagree.  I think you're assuming that nation and nation state are one.  In the case of Scots and English in the UK, that isn't the case.  It's also not the case in Quebec and Canada.  So what would be patriotism in an entirely independent Scotland, England or Quebec is actually nationalism in the context of the larger nation-state.

[viper37]

What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.

No, nationalism is not solely used with the ethnic component, far from it.  And there's really not much difference between patriotism and nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

[jimmy olsen]

In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.

So you can see the logic in a greater Saudi Arabia that would include Israel?  'Cause I don't.  Of course you prevent war!  Duh.  It's not a war when you slaughter civilians who won't fit the mold.  WWII started in 1939, but before that, there were no casualties?  C'mon.  You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it.  But you?

Look at Europe.  They're trying for a big country.  With lots of different people.  They so wanted this big country, for peace&prosperity that they closed their eyes on Greece cheating in its entry application.  It was more important to build the foundation of a new country than to ask questions on how Greece solve its debt&deficit problem in 2 years.  Look where they are now.  They're even dragging us with them.

The Ottomans seemed to rule Palestine fine, though I wouldn't trust the Saudis.  I don't really see why the emirates, Oman or Yemen need to exist.

It prevents ethnic cleansing and genocide as well.

The problem in Europe is that they haven't centralized enough.

[Ideologue]

I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation.  The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.

*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?

Are you a Scot?  And what about the Irish?  On what basis do you determine how people see themselves?  Are you a girl or a boy?  If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?

A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons.  Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.

And that's why I do not have as visceral a reaction to federalism as I do to separatism.  Because federalism is an acceptable phase, and local control tends to gradual erosion in a stable federalist system, until the differences become less and less divisive.  Greater devolution, of course, presents opposite results.

The problem with permitting secession is that it amounts to an abdication of duty on the part of the state to protect its citizens.  If 60% of Scots wished to leave, and 40% wished to stay, the United Kingdom has a duty to protect the rights as Britons which that 40% possesses; it has no duty to permit the 60% to carve a new sovereign government out of the UK's territory.

No one should ever have to surrender their rights as a British citizen because a small majority of their pseudo-ethnic group decided they'd like to destroy everyone's life; no one should ever be forced flee to the south like a refugee in order to retain those rights.  Even foolish libertarians agree that it is the job of the state to ensure that its citizens are protected from foreign threats to their liberty, property, and way of life.  Clearly, a change in sovereignty is a threat to that, and foreign by its own declaration.

If my state again attempted secession, should myself and my family have to uproot itself because it has no desire to live in the Republic of South Carolina?  Should they expect no action from the government they've served faithfully for decades?

[Ideologue]

You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it.  But you?

P.S. Fuck you, Lettow of the North.

[Barrister]

The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things.  It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same).  I rather suspect something similar here.

That is not correct.
The referendum provided for a one year period during wich the Quebec and Ottawa government would negotiate the transfer of power based on the proposals agreed between the PQ and the ADQ following a previous public inquiry (The Liberals refused to participate).
The proposals was to keep the Canadian nationality (passport) and the Canadian dollar.
If after one year, the negociations would fail, then the government could do a unilateral declaration of independence.

This wasn't what Parizeau wanted, but this is what he got.  And he would have been legally bound to stick to those terms.

That was correct.  A few years after the referendum result that news came out.  They would declare that Canada was unwilling to negotiate, and would make a UDI.