On what basis is britain a nation?

[egb_hibs]

first of this isn't a scottish nationalist question - in fact that's the opposite of the question. substitute scotland (or england, ireland, whatever) for britain in the question if you prefer - whichever you feel best represents 'your nationality' - that's what I'm after, when I ask:

What makes it a nation as opposed to a bunch of people in relative geographical proximity to one another?

What is a 'nation' these days? what does it mean, and what's the point of it?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

first of this isn't a scottish nationalist question ?

That will not stop it being hijacked.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

That will not stop it being hijacked.

I hope not - I'm trying to understand what people are so excited about. My own nationalism has been waning as I have been reflecting on the fact that the concept of the nation state is past it's sell by date.

[Bartok]

Are you not really asking what nationalism is then?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Are you not really asking what nationalism is then?

No - although that's also an interesting question. I'm trying to ask people who take for granted that they're scottish, or british or whatever, and who even might feel quite passionate about it, what they think that it is that they're talking about?

It seems to me that the bases for the structure of the nation state are falling away, but I don't think people really think about that; what made nation states, nation states, and whether that still remains valid. and if people reject the nation state as the basis for their nationalism, i'd love to hear them trying to explain what else it might be, without getting caught in a 101 pc booby traps

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

No - although that's also an interesting question. I'm trying to ask people who take for granted that they're scottish, or british or whatever, and who even might feel quite passionate about it, what they think that it is that they're talking about?

It seems to me that the bases for the structure of the nation state are falling away, but I don't think people really think about that; what made nation states, nation states, and whether that still remains valid. and if people reject the nation state as the basis for their nationalism, i'd love to hear them trying to explain what else it might be, without getting caught in a 101 pc booby traps

But I think that nationalism creates nation-states, not vice-versa. Gellner is the man who came up with the theory that it was the industrial revolution that triggered European nationalism, because a shared language was necessary for the high-level communication of ideas and technology that went with that. he did admit though that this theory does not explain Scottish nationalism, which was the fly in his ointment.

Shared history, a very human construct, is in my view the main basis for the continuity of the idea of Scotland as a nation. It is therefore sentimental, even romantic in inspiration in some ways. Other things like a separate education system, legal system, national church and fitbaw team have kept the pot boiling too. But Scotland seems to me the odd one out in Europe on this score, since language is usually the determinant of nationality.

[Dub]

I dont believe Britain is a nation. Not hijacking the thread with nationalistic diatribe egb but as far as i'm concerned Scotland, Englandshire, Ireland north and wales are four seperate nations. Britain, or Great Britain, as it used to be called rather pretentiously is an amalgam of four seperate (or should be) nations.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Dub

I dont believe Britain is a nation. Not hijacking the thread with nationalistic diatribe egb but as far as i'm concerned Scotland, Englandshire, Ireland north and wales are four seperate nations. Britain, or Great Britain, as it used to be called rather pretentiously is an amalgam of four seperate (or should be) nations.

In my experience that is a uniquely Scottish view. Everyone else sees Britain as a nation, and they usually call it England.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

But I think that nationalism creates nation-states, not vice-versa. Gellner is the man who came up with the theory that it was the industrial revolution that triggered European nationalism, because a shared language was necessary for the high-level communication of ideas and technology that went with that. he did admit though that this theory does not explain Scottish nationalism, which was the fly in his ointment.

Shared history, a very human construct, is in my view the main basis for the continuity of the idea of Scotland as a nation. It is therefore sentimental, even romantic in inspiration in some ways. Other things like a separate education system, legal system, national church and fitbaw team have kept the pot boiling too. But Scotland seems to me the odd one out in Europe on this score, since language is usually the determinant of nationality.

isn't the nation state also a response to the requirement to create a social model not based on the authority of church or crown? ie, from what other source of moral authority do laws and so on proceed? answer, the embodiment of the people as nation. i thought the french revolution was the biggest trigger for nationalism, rather than industrialisation. the french, even the left, are still fiercely nationalist today, or so it appears to me.

but that embodiment of the people as nation, draws upon prior tribal partisanship, shared history and institutions. you name a few above - but when our famed education system has been trashed, our legal system is subordinate to brussel, or national church is an irrelevance, and our fitbaw team are shite then what weight do they continue to carry? as least as an inconsequential nation, we scots are still allowed to celebrate our history. if we were english, this too would be oot the windae. multi-culturalism also seems to me to be oxymoronic in this model of nation.

as for why scottish nationalism has such a long history? simple - the clearest way to establish national identity; and one constantly employed by architects of political nationalism, is to defined yourself by what you are not and what you are opposed to. hence the scottish, and indeed the irish, so long dominated by the english, and - with no migration path being island peoples, are ideal petri dishes for the emergence of tribal nationalism.

ps tribal nationalism is a world wide phenomena, but AFAIK, only european culture produced the nation state or anything analagous to it.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dub

I dont believe Britain is a nation. Not hijacking the thread with nationalistic diatribe egb but as far as i'm concerned Scotland, Englandshire, Ireland north and wales are four seperate nations. Britain, or Great Britain, as it used to be called rather pretentiously is an amalgam of four seperate (or should be) nations.

OK - what makes scotland a nation then?

[Hampden_Hibby]

Nations are very much like football clubs. Or should that be football clubs are very much like nations?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Hampden_Hibby

Nations are very much like football clubs. Or should that be football clubs are very much like nations?

are they? as hibs supporters you and I have that in common. what, as a scot do i have in common with you, that i do not have in common with an englishman?

[James.g]

I suppose the fact that its people see it as a nation, culture, history
and the same as any other country. Thats the way most would look
on it i think, not having a language thats called scottish means nothing
to me,do the swiss have their own language?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by James.g

I suppose the fact that its people see it as a nation, culture, history
and the same as any other country. Thats the way most would look
on it i think, not having a language thats called scottish means nothing
to me,do the swiss have their own language?

what is scottish culture?

don't mean to be blunt by the way, it's just that these are the things we all refer to; but what do we actually mean?

[James.g]

Think i know what u mean, culture to me is how we live an interact with each other
and the skills and beliefs handed down from generation to generation, and i think
nationality is what you yourself believe it to be and which nation you feel part of.
Thats what it means to me (i think) but suppose you'll get different answers from diff
people

[Hampden_Hibby]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

are they? as hibs supporters you and I have that in common. what, as a scot do i have in common with you, that i do not have in common with an englishman?

Yes but maybe that's all we have in common, the label Hibs supporters. We are both Hibs supporters, we are both Scottish. That is what we have in common. How far an individual wants to take his/her interest/devotion/obsession to their football club or nation is up to them.

Football clubs are like nations because they're both a collection of individuals, often very different to each other, who share a label, maybe a love of a concept, maybe a pride in an identity, maybe dreams of success, maybe sharing the same unspoken aims and goals, maybe an inflated sense of themselves.

You said in an earlier post that a major way to establish national identity "is to define yourself by what you are not and what you are opposed to". Yam fuds and Rantic anyone?

Home and away grounds - it's all territory - vital stuff to the nation. Club colours, club flags, club crests, club anthems, please all stand for Sunshine On Leith. Demanding the removal of the government/board of directors when things aren't going well.

The Tartan Army, says it all.

[Smurf]

I don't look at Britain as a nation. Scotland is a nation best served in my opinion within the political union of the UK and indeed Europe.

[superbam]

I think the nation state has decreasing relavence in the world and I think nationalism/patriotism tends to gloss over other more important cleavages that need to be addressed. BUT I (perhaps naievely) believe Scotland as an independent nation state will strive towards a society more in line with my convictions than one which the political body of the UK is heading towards. That is my only real use for the nation and nationalism. If i didnt believe this was the case then I wouldnt have any use for it - nationalism and the nation means little to me if in a political sense if it does not coincide with the direcion I want things to go. For me Independence is not an end in itself and nationalism can only be a vehicle for other, larger ideals.

[Dub]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

OK - what makes scotland a nation then?

Culture, heritage et al. There are lots of words I could throw at that question in order to answer it or at least to try.

I am what I am and that to me is Scottish...maybe the nation is in my heart, maybe its more than that and i cant explain it, but as I am what I am, it is what it is. Are you saying scottishness isnt embedded in you and your roots? Maybe it isnt but it is in mine and quite frankly, I'm proud of that.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

isn't the nation state also a response to the requirement to create a social model not based on the authority of church or crown? ie, from what other source of moral authority do laws and so on proceed? answer, the embodiment of the people as nation. i thought the french revolution was the biggest trigger for nationalism, rather than industrialisation. the french, even the left, are still fiercely nationalist today, or so it appears to me.

But the French revolution wasn't a nationalist revolution; France was already a nation-state. It was a political revolution, replacing the crown as the source of moral authority as you put it with the national assembly. The biggest trigger for nationalism is, rather, the lack of a nation-state with a common language. Germany and Italy in the 19th century epitomise this, Poland, Hungary etc in the 20th. It is also the reason why multi-lingual states are so difficult to keep stable, eg Yugoslavia.

but that embodiment of the people as nation, draws upon prior tribal partisanship, shared history and institutions. you name a few above - but when our famed education system has been trashed, our legal system is subordinate to brussel, or national church is an irrelevance, and our fitbaw team are shite then what weight do they continue to carry? as least as an inconsequential nation, we scots are still allowed to celebrate our history. if we were english, this too would be oot the windae. multi-culturalism also seems to me to be oxymoronic in this model of nation.

Yes, if language and distinct institutions are no longer cultural 'cement' then history remains... and yet there is something more at work with Scottish nationalism IMO. It is vague and tricky to define, but I reckon many Scots identify a cultural outlook which is quite markedly different from that of England.

as for why scottish nationalism has such a long history? simple - the clearest way to establish national identity; and one constantly employed by architects of political nationalism, is to defined yourself by what you are not and what you are opposed to. hence the scottish, and indeed the irish, so long dominated by the english, and - with no migration path being island peoples, are ideal petri dishes for the emergence of tribal nationalism.

ps tribal nationalism is a world wide phenomena, but AFAIK, only european culture produced the nation state or anything analagous to it.

I think it can be articulated much more positively, but the Catch 22 is that Scottish nationalists are often forced onto the back foot by the sort of question you are asking, ie what is so different about the Scots? This obliges a statement of distinction that sounds like a refutation of Englishness.