Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

I guess that is the problem Ivan.  Your views are based on belief rather than reality.  Your gateway theory doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

[Sheilbh]

I know this is a tiresome obsession of mine but it continues to astonish me how Sturgeon gets away with some Trump-sized bullshit. The latest is that Scotland "virtually eliminated" covid over the summer before it was re-seeded by visitors from the rest of the UK. I mean for a start I'd just note that the hotspots of the current wave in Scotland are Aberdeen and Clydeside which are not known for being huge tourist destinations

On nationalism one point made in The Light that Failed which I think is astute is that nationalism is at the heart of democracy (in a way that, say, the abolition of private property isn't). Which is why it always lurks - it is fundamentally about who can and cannot make decisions, defining that imagined community that is a "nation".

[The Brain]

I know this is a tiresome obsession of mine but it continues to astonish me how Sturgeon gets away with some Trump-sized bullshit. The latest is that Scotland "virtually eliminated" covid over the summer before it was re-seeded by visitors from the rest of the UK. I mean for a start I'd just note that the hotspots of the current wave in Scotland are Aberdeen and Clydeside which are not known for being huge tourist destinations

Surely Wee Jock Poo Pong McPlop is fairly popular? Maybe he's retired by now though.

[Valmy]

lots of dogma coming from people who have their own states.
Rule of law, human rights, form of state all are important. But so is culture.
And different cultures will have different opinions on how to get that organised.

Is it possible for cultures to be of similar opinion? And how would one know which cultures are not similar enough? Besides what about all those subcultures and countercultures? And to the point that different parts of England or Spain have to leave each other because of their crazy different culture? Really?

It just seems like everytime time I hear about some immigrant group and how they can never live here because their values and culture is just so different that doesn't turn out to be the case.

[Sheilbh]

Is it possible for cultures to be of similar opinion? And how would one know which cultures are not similar enough? Besides what about all those subcultures and countercultures? And to the point that different parts of England or Spain have to leave each other because of their crazy different culture? Really?

It just seems like everytime time I hear about some immigrant group and how they can never live here because their values and culture is just so different that doesn't turn out to be the case.

Yeah I agree that's bullshit. But culture is flexible but it's also not relevant to the nationalism in Scotland, Ireland, Wales (and the North ) which are civic not ethnic and all actually very pro-immigration.

Edit: Incidentally point on the tepid feeling in England for the union (Wales is similar but slightly more in favour of the people deciding):


But people would be upset if they left (especially Wales ):


I am really interested in the seeming difference with Spain. It'd be interesting to see if there's been similar polling in Canada.

[Valmy]

I don't think it is straight ethnic. But I just want to point out it is not NOT ethnic. The Scots and English and Irish move around the...um...islands...whatever their names are. Their ethnic identities are still resilient even as they live in those other areas...as you yourself indicate. So is it entirely civic? Probably complicated.

My basic critique remains and I hope they find a way to be 'Better Together'

Especially with all the fake news the SNP uses to demonize the rest of the UK for their agenda.

[Grey Fox]

@Sheibh, usually Alberta conservative voters don't mind Quebec independence.

[grumbler]

On nationalism one point made in The Light that Failed which I think is astute is that nationalism is at the heart of democracy (in a way that, say, the abolition of private property isn't). Which is why it always lurks - it is fundamentally about who can and cannot make decisions, defining that imagined community that is a "nation".

I don't for a moment think that that is an accurate definition of "nationalism" in the minds of nationalists.  Nationalists believe that a nation is a group of people who, by right of common culture and language, share a common destiny.  German nationalists always included Austrian and Sudeten Germans in the "German nation" in spite of them having no voice or decision-making ability in Germany itself.  The heart of Weimar German democracy (when it still beat) still included Poles, French, etc., but nationalism snuffed that out.  Nationalism is the opposite of democracy, not it's heart.

The heart of democracy is prosperity.

[Sheilbh]

I don't for a moment think that that is an accurate definition of "nationalism" in the minds of nationalists.  Nationalists believe that a nation is a group of people who, by right of common culture and language, share a common destiny.  German nationalists always included Austrian and Sudeten Germans in the "German nation" in spite of them having no voice or decision-making ability in Germany itself.  The heart of Weimar German democracy (when it still beat) still included Poles, French, etc., but nationalism snuffed that out.  Nationalism is the opposite of democracy, not it's heart.

The heart of democracy is prosperity.

I wasn't really describing nationalism or how nationalists think about it. My point is that I think nationalism is inherent in democracy because the core of democracy is the demos and deciding who that is and isn't - so far it's always been the imagined community of a nation rather than a class or religion etc. That may shift over time and for the European project to work it needs to (though I'd note that with the proposed Commissioner for the European Way of Life and Macron's posturing on Islam, plus Orban and PiS it feels as likely they'll define a "European" nation).

And obviously there are lots of variants on nationalism: civic, ethnic, cultural, linguistic. So the definition of who is in or out the nation (or who should be) will vary.

I don't think it is straight ethnic. But I just want to point out it is not NOT ethnic. The Scots and English and Irish move around the...um...islands...whatever their names are. Their ethnic identities are still resilient even as they live in those other areas...as you yourself indicate. So is it entirely civic? Probably complicated.

I mean it's not ethnic though and it varies more cultural and not everyone does that

And I lived in Scotland during like core growing up time - so I didn't really support England in sports (but remember Ireland beating Italy in 94 and Scotland's group in 98), I went to Feisean as a kid, played shinty etc.

[viper37]

I guess that is the problem Ivan.  Your views are based on belief rather than reality.  Your gateway theory doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

He's pretty right in his definition of nationalism.  It's exactly the same as patriotism, but without borders.

Most Americans are patriots, but they ain't joining the Proud Boys either.  Or the patriotic KKK, even in the South.  Or any kind of militia that "seeks to protect American freedoms & values".

na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: nationalism; plural noun: nationalisms

    identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
    "their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"

    Similar:
    patriotism

patriotic sentiment
loyalism
nationality
xenophobia
chauvinism
jingoism
flag-waving
ethnocentrism
ethnocentricity

    advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
    "Scottish nationalism"

pa·tri·ot·ism
/ˈpātrēəˌtizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: patriotism

    the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
    "a highly decorated officer of unquestionable integrity and patriotism"

You can't be a patriot if you have no country of your own.

I never understood that fascination of describing nationalism as inherently evil.  Even in its most drastic form, I think religions got a good head start on the violent & discriminative side of things compared to nationalism.

[viper37]

The heart of democracy is prosperity.

you can have prosperity without democracy and you can have democracy without prosperity.

[Valmy]

You can't be a patriot if you have no country of your own.

I do not have a country of my own

Maybe someday I can buy Sealand or something so I can be a patriot.

I never understood that fascination of describing nationalism as inherently evil.

Depends on what we are talking about. Identity politics based on separation from others has a pretty bad track record and a pretty rotten and discredited ideology behind it.

I suppose there is some kind of nationalism out there is not about founding countries based on identity politics and fostering cultish us vs them narratives. And I don't have any problems with that kind of nationalism whatever that might be. You will find I only critisize ideas I find bad whether they are labelled "nationalism" or something else.

[viper37]

Especially with all the fake news the SNP uses to demonize the rest of the UK for their agenda.

while the UK is always perfectly honest about everything, never a lie comes out of British politicians' mouths?

c'mon. Let's not exagarate here.  You hate nationalism, fine.  But don't make stuff up.  The SNP demonizes the UK just as the UK demonizes the nationalism sentiments of the Scots.  Canadians hate Quebec nationalists, our prime ministers calls it tribalism, but don't dare ask a Canadian why they don't merge their country with their english brethren to the South.  Somehow, that's different...  Same language, same culture (subject to geography), shared history, but different forms of government.  That's about the only difference. 

They watch the same tv shows, albeit sometimes they simply change the host and call it "Canadian idol" instead

If you compare CBC with SRC, there's a lot, lot, lot less Canadian content on the english channel.  Global only shows local news, the rest is all American tv or American concepts.  I think CTV has, maybe, one or two Canadian drama or sitcom per year, at most. CTV Sci-Fi scripted shows all come from the US.  They're only presenting Canadian ads on the feed.  But we're the tribal ones, according to dear Justin.

Radio has always been more local, than tv, but when it comes to books however, you'd be hard pressed to find original Canadian stories written in English.  The most successful authors even take their inspiration in what is happening South of the border to write their books

So, all alike.  But they don't want to live together, for some reason.  Yet, other people with radically different values are supposed to suck it up.  Weird, when you think about it.

[viper37]

I do not have a country of my own

If you identify primarily as a Texan and feel there are genuine differences between you and the other Americans, then yes, you do not have a country of your own.

But since that would be flirting with secession, sedition and all these nasty words, you call yourself American, you have a fair level of influence [excluding gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other stuff like that) in your Federal government.  Your Senators are loyal to Texas and their party.  Well, before Trump, maybe.  Actually, before Obama.  There seemed to be less partisan issues under GW Bush and Bill Clinton.  It seemed to me reaching across the aisle was more common.  Now, you're almost bickering like a bunch of Canadian parliamentarians

Maybe someday I can buy Sealand or something so I can be a patriot.

You identify as American.  Does signing the national anthem in school every morning still a thing?

Depends on what we are talking about. Identity politics based on separation from others has a pretty bad track record and a pretty rotten and discredited ideology behind it.

Define "separation from others".

'Cause I can't exactly see AOC or Sanders working the conservative south with their agenda.  And Hillary did refer to them as a basket of despicable for not thinking like her.  Why would it be ok to discriminate against conservatives from one religious group, to prevent them from discriminating in the first place, but it would be different if doing it to another racial group?

I suppose there is some kind of nationalism out there is not about founding countries based on identity politics and fostering cultish us vs them narratives. And I don't have any problems with that kind of nationalism whatever that might be. You will find I only critisize ideas I find bad whether they are labelled "nationalism" or something else.

Cultish us vs them narrative is pretty much what you have right now in the US, and it ain't limited to the GOP. The only reason the far left is voting Democrat this year is because everyone is totally fed up with Trump's crisis management after 4 years.  Otherwise, they'd stay home instead of voting, like in 2016.

And yet, America is the same patriotic nation it always was.  The same America that called a certain party defeatocrats for refusing to join in the war, the same America that published columns after columns in some newspapers and had tv show hosts denouncing filthy anti-God liberals.

All politics are based on differences.  Otherwise, there'd be no politics, everyone would see thing the same way.

The Liberal Party of Canada demonizes all its opponents equally.  The Liberal party of Quebec did it same in its strongest years.  Whenever a leader mellows and tries to reach across the aisle he gets called for it by the opposition denouncing "weakness", "lack of talent", "lack of experience" and is usually "rewarded" by a loss of seats.

All of it is fair game, imho.

So long as there's no undue discrimination upon individuals and everyone is theoriticaly treated equally by the institutions, I see no problem.

The Catalans aren't nationalists because they want to slaughter the Spanish.  The Basque don't have a deeply rooted hatred against the French and the Spanish, despite some bombings.  Irish might be different, for historical reasons, and for their divided country (strangely, that was totally acceptable to separate two groups that were unable to live together in harmony...  No British politician is talking about reuniting Ireland under one government, afaik).

That's another thing I don't understand.  Borders are human creations, they've changed over time, they will always change.  They usually change by force, and we're totally fine with letting that happen.  Nobody has moved an inch to push Russia out Ukraine, Crimea or out of any of its former Republics, which weren't exactly given a choice to join the mighty Russian Empire and later the glorious USSR.

Annexing a nation by force into another, bigger group seems totally fine, no matter the cost in human life, but democratic transition toward a newer, more mono-cultural nation is the root of all evil and will only lead to suffering.

Weird.

[Valmy]

If you identify primarily as a Texan and feel there are genuine differences between you and the other Americans, then yes, you do not have a country of your own.

I am sure I share a great deal of genuine differences with a great deal of people. Texas, and the United States, is a big place with lots of different types of people living in it, many of whom I have little in common with. But we all manage to make it work together to the reasonable extent that us crazy humans are able to do so.

But since that would be flirting with secession, sedition and all these nasty words, you call yourself American,

I have stated repeatedly I am not actually against secession. I have stated repeatedly when I think it is justified. And while I am a Texan and an American I do not really get too wrapped up in that as an identity. It is just a factual statement. I could call try to call myself a proud Jacobin but people would just think I am insane.

you have a fair level of influence [excluding gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other stuff like that) in your Federal government.

I have one vote. Not all that much influence.

Your Senators are loyal to Texas and their party.  Well, before Trump, maybe.  Actually, before Obama.  There seemed to be less partisan issues under GW Bush and Bill Clinton.  It seemed to me reaching across the aisle was more common.  Now, you're almost bickering like a bunch of Canadian parliamentarians

Funny you point that out in this context. Politics used to be much more regional and sectional around here. Now they are becoming very much partisan based. I mean that always existed but now that seems to be bigger than anything. So you get weird things like Michigan reactionaries waiving Confederate Flags 

You identify as American.  Does signing the national anthem in school every morning still a thing?

Signing? If only, we might learn ASL that way. In any case no, as far as I know we never sang or signed the national anthem in the morning. We did the pledge of allegiance which is a silly thing. We also did a pledge for Texas. You never say them after you leave school. Damn did I even do them in Middle School or High School? I don't remember.

Define "separation from others".

'Cause I can't exactly see AOC or Sanders working the conservative south with their agenda.  And Hillary did refer to them as a basket of despicable for not thinking like her.  Why would it be ok to discriminate against conservatives from one religious group, to prevent them from discriminating in the first place, but it would be different if doing it to another racial group?

Lots of Southerners support AOC and Bernie though But at least that is based on ideas and political values. Though obviously I am not a big fan of this strong identification with political partisanship and often point out how dangerous and bad it is. We have all these militias paranoid that the other group is coming to kill them.

It is interesting that you never combat what I am saying only going on big whataboutism trips building up this strawman that somehow I am claiming everything that is not nationalism is great and nothing ever goes wrong with anything in the entire world. It is weird.

Cultish us vs them narrative is pretty much what you have right now in the US, and it ain't limited to the GOP. The only reason the far left is voting Democrat this year is because everyone is totally fed up with Trump's crisis management after 4 years.  Otherwise, they'd stay home instead of voting, like in 2016.

I mean cultish us vs them narratives come from cults which are also not nationalism so yes I would say it shares similar issues with other bad ideas.

And yet, America is the same patriotic nation it always was.  The same America that called a certain party defeatocrats for refusing to join in the war, the same America that published columns after columns in some newspapers and had tv show hosts denouncing filthy anti-God liberals.

And they often use nationalist rhetoric and paint them as hating America. Because they are America. But so what?

All politics are based on differences.  Otherwise, there'd be no politics, everyone would see thing the same way.

Ok. But don't nationalists claim that, in fact, everybody from a certain group does see things the same way? I mean we know that is not true, as you are clearly pointing out how supposedly the "nation" of "America" constantly fights itself. So how does falling for this false narrative help or actually do anything? What are we achieving by painting this fake picture that as soon as we create this nation state we will live in harmony? We know we won't. Ideas based on things that are provably false are not good ideas.

The Liberal Party of Canada demonizes all its opponents equally.  The Liberal party of Quebec did it same in its strongest years.  Whenever a leader mellows and tries to reach across the aisle he gets called for it by the opposition denouncing "weakness", "lack of talent", "lack of experience" and is usually "rewarded" by a loss of seats.

All of it is fair game, imho.

I don't think I said what is a fair game or not a fair game. And I cannot speak to the crimes of the Liberal Party of Quebec.

So long as there's no undue discrimination upon individuals and everyone is theoriticaly treated equally by the institutions, I see no problem.

No problem with what?

The Catalans aren't nationalists because they want to slaughter the Spanish.  The Basque don't have a deeply rooted hatred against the French and the Spanish, despite some bombings.

I certainly hope they do not.

Irish might be different, for historical reasons, and for their divided country (strangely, that was totally acceptable to separate two groups that were unable to live together in harmony...  No British politician is talking about reuniting Ireland under one government, afaik).

I think most Irish are cool. And yes clearly Ireland is a great example of rousing success that should be repeated, I think it kind of shows how partition solves little. Anyway I don't understand "strangely, that was totally acceptable" I mean it was in an era where massive population transfers and all kinds of nationalist schemes were acceptable.

That's another thing I don't understand.  Borders are human creations, they've changed over time, they will always change. They usually change by force, and we're totally fine with letting that happen.  Nobody has moved an inch to push Russia out Ukraine, Crimea or out of any of its former Republics, which weren't exactly given a choice to join the mighty Russian Empire and later the glorious USSR.

Annexing a nation by force into another, bigger group seems totally fine, no matter the cost in human life, but democratic transition toward a newer, more mono-cultural nation is the root of all evil and will only lead to suffering.

It might be fine with you, you might think that is great. I do not appreciate being included in your first person plural there. I don't find aggressive war totally fine.

A democratic transition to create lots of new borders that do create problems for common people, that limit economic opportunities, that create new national interests with new potential for conflict and dividing families and communities along the way for no justifiable purpose I can see is a bad idea. Especially if it centers around this  fake identity politics myth that those people over there are people you can never live with. It is amazing the lies and false narratives that need to be pulled out of people's ass to justify that.

That is not an endorsement of other things that are not that though. More than one thing can be a bad idea. Just because I think that is a bad idea doesn't mean I am going to think it is worse than aggressive conquest. If you want to know I think peaceful nationalist shenanigans are much better than aggressive conquest. Czechoslovakia breaking up was just kind of ridiculous, but the Germans invading Czechoslovakia was a crime. Pretty big distinction there.

Weird.

Indeed. But it's your post man.