England has never been very good at incorporating other nations. Hell, the Welsh still don't consider themselves English and they were annexed by England nearly five centuries ago.
Printable View
England has never been very good at incorporating other nations. Hell, the Welsh still don't consider themselves English and they were annexed by England nearly five centuries ago.
Best non-European example that I can come up with is the Iroquois. Of course I'm not really knowledgeable about Asian history in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I was referring to recognized states. :o
A triumph. Not so petty and insecure as to feel a need to blend all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by NGS
Loki: Why would we want the Sheep Shaggers to be considered English?
So another 10% of your territory doesn't decide to secede in the future.
I could only hope ...
Why not just declare a commune-state for every major city?
Also, I would contend the profitability of switching currencies goes down as near 0 transaction costs lets in all players, in that sense it makes more than one currency less useful. Essentially becoming a waste of time (which everone has to spend) switching between them. The real pro of multiple currencies is ultimately you don't have to rely on one single institution to get it right on how to manage the currency. I think all the other pros of multiple currencies will get washed away once a single government and economy is formed.Quote:
Lebby has it backwards. As transaction costs go towards zero then the advantages for a universal currency decrease not increase.
Petty and insecure? That sounds an awful lot like projection. Do I identify as an American rather than a North Carolinian because I'm petty and insecure? No, I do so because I think my national values supersede those of my state and because of the job others have done of crafting a national identity to foster unity.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What's the real reason you'd rather not call yourself British? Certainly it can't be lumping yourself in with those "sheep shaggers."
I wonder how Rand thinks an "English" culture was created if not by an attempt to blend preexisting cultures (or an attempt by one to dominate the rest).
Most of what makes me proud to be English stands in direct opposition to the herp derp Little Englandism Randblade is espousing here. Most of what makes me ashamed to be English stands in direct support of it.
In other news, Loki just made a much stronger point that me but I felt the need to wade in and have my say anyway, so I posted.
I thought you were Scottish? Or do you just live there?
Seriousy? I actually do live very near the border, but I'm certainly not Scottish.
You just refuse to admit it. :p
If you were to hear me speak, it would soon disabuse you of this notion.
I probably would be equally likely to not understand anything you say.
Natural evolution. I don't think anyone deliberately merged cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And why couldn't such evolution include the Welsh and the Scots? :noob: Seems to me that the main reason has to do with the reach of English kings.
Out of curiosity, what makes you proud or ashamed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Requiring Westphalian states and then saying you can't find non-European models is some kind of self-defeating tautology, isn't it Loki? I'm going to assume you're going to refuse to accept Vietnam as an example because the partition was temporary, part of a civil war, ex parte colonialism, blah blah blah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Erm, Vietnam involved one side militarily beating the other...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The ones I could think of are Zanzibar uniting with Tanzania, Singapore uniting with Malaysia, and a bunch of attempts to create some form of an Arab Republic. All but the first project collapsed. You could make a decent case for German and Italian unification, but that involved quite a bit of coercion, and ultimately ended up with the dominant state enforcing its culture on the rest.
Edit: forgot the unification of Germany in 1991.
Because we still recognise each nation as a nation, not a state. Can't think of many other examples like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Recognised even in organisations like FIFA etc that we're 4 nations not one. Can't think of any other countries like the UK which has multiple nations recognised as nations within one country. Are there any other examples?
I'm proud of the idea that we can accept multiple nations and not have to coerce each other.
That's a chicken and an egg argument. The reason each is recognized as a "nation" is because they consider themselves as nations. As for similar failures to integrate minority nations, Spain is probably the closest example, and their failure had more to do with the inability of the Spanish kings to impose control on their lands. Belgium is even worse, but at least it's only been around for two centuries. The Ottomans succeeded in making "Turks" out of some people (Muslims in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Anatolia), but not others (Kurds, Arabs, and non-Muslims); then again, you couldn't really call yourself a Serb, Croat, Bulgarian, or Greek if you converted to Islam, which made the Turkey label appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
American Samoa and Puerto Rico participate in the Olympics, despite being US territories. Ditto for Aruba and the Netherlands, and many other non-sovereign islands in the Caribbean.Quote:
Recognised even in organisations like FIFA etc that we're 4 nations not one. Can't think of any other countries like the UK which has multiple nations recognised as nations within one country. Are there any other examples?
A) You're assuming all other nations involved a high degree of coercion.Quote:
I'm proud of the idea that we can accept multiple nations and not have to coerce each other.
B) You're assuming there was no coercion involved in the creation of an English nationality.
No you're wrong, it is far more than just self-identification. The 4 nations were always and still are recognised as nations. The Scottish legal code is very different to the English one as they were never homogenised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes but they're rather separate territories aren't they? Like the Falklands or Gibraltar. It's not like New Jersey competes separately.Quote:
American Samoa and Puerto Rico participate in the Olympics, despite being US territories. Ditto for Aruba and the Netherlands, and many other non-sovereign islands in the Caribbean.
Were always? :noob: Various parts of what is now England had different legal codes until England was unified in the 10th century or so, and then had to integrate what ever passed for the Normal legal code. The Scots were also around as a unified people from about the 10th century. Even then, the very idea of a nation in the modern sense of the word had few followers until perhaps the 19th century. Numerous English kings considered themselves as much French as English, and most peasants identified with their village or perhaps their lord or king, but certainly not with other peasants throughout the country. I think the main reason the Scots and Welsh retained their separate identities is because they are geographically separated from the English, and the English weren't involved in much internal migration. Regardless, you overestimate the determinacy of having separate British nations. It's not inconceivable that given a change in a few factors in the 18th century along with a real attempt to create a unified culture might have produced a single English people.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Loki is right here, the notion of 'nation' wrt 'state' is relatively new. All one has to do is have a look at the slew of kingdoms Scottish, French and English kings claimed for themselves in their titles. Or how the Dutch revolution couldn't quite figure out how to be a state for quite a long time after the nation re-asserted itself against it's overlord.
Always as in post-unification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I live much closer to Wales than London, it's not that geographically separate.
Agreed that had there been much effort things may have been different but that's my point. Such an effort was not made.
I honestly don't know what advantage the Scottish hope to gain from independence or for that matter what the Commonwealth would lose so is it just a case of making official what is already true? That these are independent countries sort of masquerading as a single nation for mutual benefit and convenience?
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all identify as separate countries, politically and culturally independent of each other but they are huddling together under the pseudo-nation-state umbrella of the United Kingdom (Commonwealth of England) so what is it that unifies them?
The House of Windsor? Currency? Military? Geographic convenience? Historic entanglements? What else? Religion is a debatable unifier given the history of the Protestants and Catholics in the UK and the effect of non Christian immigration.
Is the Wealth in Commonwealth the big unifying force? Seems doubtful...
If the majority of citizens in each country do not consider themselves British (other than the English perhaps) it seems the United Kingdom is a marriage of convenience due mostly to the geographic location.
Is the United Kingdom then something akin to a large Neighbourhood Watch? :eek:
Maybe it is just a relic of the old British Empire.
The Scots will never not be British, but that's something different than being in the UK. I think the only real answer to what that country made is a shared tradition and history. Pretty much how it is for most countries and the people that live in them. The Commonwealth has got next to nothing to do with it, other than being the old empire over which the people of Britain ruled. Northern Ireland is a bit funny that way.
The Scots will never be English, they are British.
You obviously have a very mangled idea of how the United Kingdom operates there broah. England, Scotland, and NI political and culturally independent of each other? Uh, no. The level of autonomy currently enjoyed by Scotchland and Wales is at most on a par of that enjoyed by a US State. The situation you describe would likely pertain if Scotland opted for the so called devo-max option, where they would enjoy a level of autonomy similar to that found in the British Overseas Territories <- they basically manage their own affairs but the Crown is responsible for foreign policy and defense. Indeed, SNP officials have been known to be in contact with the Island of Guernsey to see how that worked out for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by termite
Considering yourself "British" and "Scottish" / "English" are not mutually exclusive. I personally would only refer to myself as English if I was in another part of the UK. When telling someone else where your from how specific you are really depends on who they are and where you are and you tell them whatever will mean most to them. If I was in China or somewhere and someone asks me where I'm from I don't give them the name of my village. I say "Britain" because that actually means something to them. I could equally say "England" because to most Johnny Foreigners, the two are basically interchangeable. In the same situation, only a Scot would be likely to say "Scotland", depending on how nationalistic they are. Someone from NI would likely either say "Britain" or "Ireland" depending on which side of the street they grew up, I guess...Quote:
If the majority of citizens in each country do not consider themselves British (other than the English perhaps) it seems the United Kingdom is a marriage of convenience due mostly to the geographic location.
ps the the common wealth of england hasn't existed for like 300 years.
Actually, insisting on "Britain" rather than "England" is a pretty new phenomena. In the olden times, everyone just used the two interchangeably.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I must apologise, it was me that was mangled Steely, I have to confess to being more than a little intoxicated when I posted last night - it was Australia day yesterday and it was 42°C in the shade. Cold beer, BBQ lamb and some outgoing companions helped make it a good day but I seem to have imbibed somewhere in the vicinity of 20 beers which is above and beyond...
Anyway I think what I was getting at in my post was that despite your mob having a cozy arrangement in the UK (the Commonwealth of England was lame attempt at humour btw) you still have cultural differences and identify as either Welsh, English, Scottish etc which makes me wonder what the cost/benefit of this Scottish independence is. Sort of a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." analogy if you like.
One reason this topic got my addled mind interested is that I live in Western Australia which was a fairly reluctant participant in Australian Federation in 1901 and there has been talk of seceding from the Commonwealth of Australia ever since - though I doubt anyone ever seriously considered doing more than murmuring. Reasons for seceding are many and varied but one of the most vocal has been the uneven distribution of wealth under the Federal system - WA has by far the most resources and generates much of the revenue that ends up in the more populated but less resource rich states. Of course this is also why the Federal system could never allow WA to secede...
...it would appear to be a very different situation to the Scottish.
The Yes campaign in favour of Scottish independence was officially launched today.
EDIT termite: Having just re-read your post, actually its very similar. Scotland has a lot of natural resources, it has over 80% of the off-shore North Sea oil. "Its Scottish oil" is one of the SNP's oldest arguments.
No one has explained why they are doing it two years before the vote.
Because with the current opinion polls it'll take that long to convince the Scots to say Yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
For a decision of this importance, I'd rather that everyone is fully informed and is rather bored of it by the end - than a 4 week campaign and people are confused.
Salmond, despite being oily as fuck and, worse, a Scotchman, has proven himself to be a shrewd political operator. Don't be surprised if he pulls it off.