strichener Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's not disgraceful. Disgraceful is a word that could be applied to the two-faced attitudes of those complaining about Scotland not having rhe government they voted for in Westminster whilst ignoring the same applies for most Scots with Holyrood. At least Westminster has a committee system that has the gumption to hold the executive to account and a second chamber to scrutinise legislation. You might want to review your opinion on the Westminster committee system. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28877033 Would appear that they lack the ability to hold the executive to account. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 No bother. We are part of the UK. We make the decisions. No, Westminster does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's partly my North Sea oil, being from the east coast with views of the sea. Why should people from Glasgow get the benefit and not me?!!! Possibly because Glasgow will be in an iScotland and Berwick won't. I used to have a grand view of the Eildon hills but it doesn't make them partly mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Is VT on an identity crusade again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Possibly because Glasgow will be in an iScotland and Berwick won't. I used to have a grand view of the Eildon hills but it doesn't make them partly mine.Maybe only east coast communities should get the benefit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Maybe only east coast communities should get the benefit. You could always move to Scotland pal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I can see it from my office. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 You could always move to Scotland pal. He won't need to, Berwick is one of the first places we will annexe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The UK is not and has never even claimed to be a nation state champ. I wasn't aware it had been asked. The UK is clearly a nation state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I wasn't aware it had been asked. The UK is clearly a nation state. Ed Balls on the Better Together website calls it a multinational state. Gordon Brown called it that too when he was in power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I wasn't aware it had been asked. The UK is clearly in a state. HTH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ed Balls on the Better Together website calls it a multinational state. Gordon Brown called it that too when he was in power. The two are not mutually exclusive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The two are not mutually exclusive. Fair do's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I wasn't aware it had been asked. The UK is clearly a nation state. Erm no, it quite clearly isn't. France is a nation state. The UK is a unitary state, in the form of a kingdom. The UK does not claim its territory because its subjects are British; they are held solely by virtue of belonging to the monarch. France has for two centuries justified its state existence on the basis of French nationality; at no time has British nationality been used to justify the UK state's existence - not by governments, and not in political discourse. Swing and a miss, Britnat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The two are not mutually exclusive. Well no: the two quite clearly are mutually exclusive. Which is why multinational states in history have been, almost entirely, dissolved into 'nation states': the two being not the same thing, and not compatible with each other. If you're struggling with that concept, try some basic reading on Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) Is VT on an identity crusade again? No, H_B is having another regional vs national meltdown. Edited August 21, 2014 by pandarilla 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Telt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I must admit to suppressing a giggle whenever VT ragdolls H_B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Well no: the two quite clearly are mutually exclusive. Which is why multinational states in history have been, almost entirely, dissolved into 'nation states': the two being not the same thing, and not compatible with each other. If you're struggling with that concept, try some basic reading on Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Wrong. "The 1878 Treaty of Berlin, which was equally far-reaching, had seven signatories, comprising four nation states (Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) and three empires (Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey). " "Since a common language is essential for effective communication, nations are usually identified with one language, but there are many nations which speak the same language, such as Britain and Ireland or Spain and Mexico, but are quite distinct. Where several languages are spoken in a nation state, one is generally predominant."" "The 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which represented the international community as then understood, had eight signatories, of which only five (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden) were nation states as we have described them. " Swing and a miss... thanks for playing... telt... etc etc http://www.thenationstate.co.uk/TheNationState.pdf Edited August 22, 2014 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Erm no, it quite clearly isn't. France is a nation state. The UK is a unitary state, in the form of a kingdom. The UK does not claim its territory because its subjects are British; they are held solely by virtue of belonging to the monarch. France has for two centuries justified its state existence on the basis of French nationality; at no time has British nationality been used to justify the UK state's existence - not by governments, and not in political discourse. Swing and a miss, Britnat. This is not the definition of a nation state champ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.