It's the Corbyn and the National Anthem thread......

[Outrider]

Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.

How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.

How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.

O.

It's about how a country runs itself .. If you live in a country you determine the future of that country. If you live in another country determine the future of that country. As Jim's already covered the nationality in question is civic not ethnic

[Outrider]

Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.

How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.

O.

It's about how a country runs itself .. If you live in a country you determine the future of that country. If you live in another country determine the future of that country. As Jim's already covered the nationality in question is civic not ethnic

If Scotland were to become a separate nation, and I were to get dual-nationality, I'd be entitled to vote in Scottish affairs, I'd be potentially entitled to benefits from the Scottish finances, I'd be entitled to consular representation from the Scottish Foreign Office.

The details are civic, and ethnicity isn't a concern, but eligibility is - my nationality could be irrevocably changed regardless of which side of the border I live.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If Scotland were to become a separate nation, and I were to get dual-nationality, I'd be entitled to vote in Scottish affairs, I'd be potentially entitled to benefits from the Scottish finances, I'd be entitled to consular representation from the Scottish Foreign Office.

The details are civic, and ethnicity isn't a concern, but eligibility is - my nationality could be irrevocably changed regardless of which side of the border I live.

O.

And what you did there would be in the main your choice - the point is that eligibility just as ethnicity is just as much a construct as the idea of a country.

[JP]

Two extracts from the Edinburgh Agreement

The governments are agreed that the referendum should:
 • have a clear legal base; • be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament;
 • be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people; and
 • deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.

and

They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Respect and decisive clearly means something else to the SNP because no sooner did they lose, they started bleating on.

[Anchorman]

I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.

All nations are constructs - it's the imposition of that construct on the middle-East in the late 1800's and early 1900's over the heads of their pre-existing tribal delineations that's a major element of so much of the trouble we're reaping now.

O.

-
Yep.....and guess which 'Land of Hope and Glory' was largely responsible.....this so-called 'great' Britain.

Yes. A Britain of which Scotland was an integral and important part - it provided the nation with explorers and inventors and scientists and politicians and surveyors and soldiers. As someone with a foot in both camps, as it were, the rise of nationalism on both sides of the border - more dramatically in Scotland - saddens me. I don't think of myself as English or Scots or half-and-half, I think of myself as British.

O.

Absolutely, Outrider.
Scots did, unfortunately, play their part in empire - and a fair population of the English speaking former colonies are descended to those cleared from the land in an early example of ethnic cleansing - another invention, to add to the concentration camp, genocide, exploitation, etc, of which the British Empire (including Scots) was guilty.
That's why 'Land of Hope and Glory' is a shameful song.
That's why, too, that I believe that, just as the British project built up gradually over the centuries, it's long past time for its' disintegration.

[Hope]

I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.

Odd that, Jim.  After all, the people who lived in the British Isles were referred to as (Ancient) Britons for centuries before it became a political statement.

[ekim]

That's why, too, that I believe that, just as the British project built up gradually over the centuries, it's long past time for its' disintegration.

That's like Christianity, if you can't agree, split up.  I should have thought that working towards better integration would be a higher motive, but I suppose if you are conditioned in a certain way you will look to project your difficulties on to an evil empire or a Satan, play the blame game and facilitate disintegration.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.

All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.

Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.

All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.

Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.

NI?

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.

All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.

Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.

NI?

NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.

[Nearly Sane]

NI?

NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.

And Britain isn't a nation so your pedantry here is specious. The construct that exists includes NI. As for the 'greater objective validity' for something that is a subjective construct, that is a meaningless statement.

[ProfessorDavey]

NI?

NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.

And Britain isn't a nation so your pedantry here is specious. The construct that exists includes NI. As for the 'greater objective validity' for something that is a subjective construct, that is a meaningless statement.

No it isn't.

I said very clearly that all nations are constructs. However where there is some non-political geographic natural border there is a greater validity in saying that a certain block of land is naturally 'one' and therefore more naturally 'a nation' than if you have to arbitrarily define a land border to define a nation.

So in that context England, Scotland and Wales individually are more much more political constructs than Britain is (with its naturally defined sea border). The UK is also much more a political construct akin to England, Scotland and Wales than Britain is.

Ireland in its entirety has greater validity as a naturally defined nation than the republic and NI do individual as they are very clearly, and very recent (in overall terms) political constructs.

[Nearly Sane]

It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.

[Nearly Sane]

And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.

Ok try to walk across the arbitrarily defined border between Wales and England - say from Stapleton (in England) to Presteigne (in Wales).

Do the same across the 'arbitrarily' defined border between Scotland and NI - say from Portpatrick (in Scotland) to Carrickfergus (in NI).

Then tell me which is more subjective and which more objective.

[ProfessorDavey]

And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.

Which are all entirely part of one of those countries, or not at all.

No land borders involved.

[Nearly Sane]

Since the constructs are entirely that the difficulty in walking is merely a subjective standard you have added in. By the way do you want to walk to Lewis from Lewes?

[ProfessorDavey]

Since the constructs are entirely that the difficulty in walking is merely a subjective standard you have added in.

Nope - I think it is objectively difficult to walk from Portpatrick (in Scotland) to Carrickfergus (in NI) - no subjectivity required.

There is a natural border between Britain and the rest of Europe, or Ireland which would still exist whether or not there were people living on either side, and regardless of the make up and cultural heritage of the people living on either side. The same isn't true for the border between Scotland and England or England and Wales.

And indeed a little understanding of history demonstrates this - so about 1000 years ago the natural border between Britain and the rest of Europe, or Ireland existed exactly as it does today. Yet the whole of the norther east of what we now call England and the south east of what we now call Scotland were a single Kingdom (Northumbria). Where these is an arbitrarily drawn border today would cut that earlier nation in half.

[Nearly Sane]

And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.

Which are all entirely part of one of those countries, or not at all.

No land borders involved.

but I thought walking places was somehow important to you in your subjective way

[Nearly Sane]

It is harder to walk across the sea unless you are Jesus. That does not mean that it is objectively true than land borders are less valid than sea ones as regards the artificial constructs that nation states are.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is harder to walk across the sea unless you are Jesus. That does not mean that it is objectively true than land borders are less valid than sea ones as regards the artificial constructs that nation states are.

Sea borders provide a natural geographic boundary that exists regardless of the influence of people - in other words they exist objectively. Land border are entirely (or largely) constructs of people, they do not exist outside of the construction of people, they are therefore subjective, rather than objective.

There are of course some land borders that are pretty objective - the border between Tibet and Nepal being one good example as the mountains are as great a barrier to integration between one side and the other as any stretch of sea.

[Nearly Sane]

Borders in terms of nation states don't exist objectively at all. They are a subjective concept and subjectively you are adding a preference for those borders to be sea ones. That islands exist is irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

Borders in terms of nation states don't exist objectively at all. They are a subjective concept and subjectively you are adding a preference for those borders to be sea ones. That islands exist is irrelevant.

Like I said right at the start all nations are constructs. The point is that those that align with geographically distinct regions have a greater objective validity and islands are the most obvious example. Nations defined merely by land borders arbitrarily drawn on the map for some purely subjective political purpose are less 'objectively valid' than those that align with geographic borders and boundaries.

[jakswan]

It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.

Wouldn't the construct be more 'valid' if more people agreed with it. Anchorman can claim he's a Scottish citizen as can a member claim they are an Islamic State citizen however since no one else recognises these countries Anchorman remains a British Citizen.