No, I don't think that's a healthy thing. I also don't think that's what Scottish nationalism is about - especially when the current Scottish government are actively promoting an increase in people, particularly immigrants, to Scotland. I'm also not sure how nationalism itself can want to create more and more states with fewer and fewer people. What are the plans, for all nationalist movements to indulge in genocide? That's a bit nutty.
I would have thought that is self-evident. If you have a country that is broken up into, say, four pieces, the populations of those states will be smaller than the previous bigger state, won't they?
It's these "nationalist" types, who mistakenly believe that by breaking the earth into increasingly small dollops of land the people of said dollops are better served who must take much of the blame, don'tcha know.
The flag wavers, the "proud to be XXXXX" brigade.
Crowing over the headlong plunge of the world into a nightmare scenario of a patchwork quilt of Lilliputian jingoistic "homelands" is hardly the thing, old chap.
Nationalism of the jingoistic type seems to me to be all about creating larger states by annexing the smaller states round about.
And what of nationalist movements throughout the rest of the world? Presumably you support all of them too?
You post under the misapprehension that all nationlist movements are the same.
Thats as idiotic as saying all socialist models are the same.
Sounds like you are against decolonisation? Are you saying any country under the yoke of imperialism should not seek self determination as that is a nationlist movement?
You post under the misapprehension that all nationlist movements are the same.
Thats as idiotic as saying all socialist models are the same.
Sounds like you are against decolonisation? Are you saying any country under the yoke of imperialism should not seek self determination as that is a nationlist movement?
The analogy of Scotland as being under some sort of imperialist yoke is spurious.
Scottish Capitalists down the centuries have been jus as culpable as English and Welsh Capitalists in the creation of Empire.
Why would we need to. We would be welcoming nice Mr Putin to help us get rid of some baggage (Trident) left on one of our lochs by the evicted former tenants who refuse to collect it.
What about all those Scots who lose their jobs when Trident leaves.?
Are you in favour of decolonisation from an imperial power, even though that would be considered nationalism?
Following what you have posted about nationalist movements here you must be against that.
I am just as anti-imperialist as I am anti- nationalist.
Anti-imperialist movements are not necessarily nationalistic. Many of the Marxist groups that fought imperialism in Africa for instance could hardly be called so.
I am just as anti-imperialist as I am anti- nationalist.
Anti-imperialist movements are not necessarily nationalistic. Many of the Marxist groups that fought imperialism in Africa for instance could hardly be called so.
But some are.
So some nationalist anti imperialist movements and thus, nationalist movements, are alright in your view.
Glad we cleared that up. For a minute I thought you were of the opinion that colonies of imperial powers should just accept their lot.
Because I was speaking of this nation. You have to start somewhere.
The distant prospect of Socialism is getting even further away thanks to the mania of nationalism splitting the world into smaller and smaller parts.
Really?
I would have thought that the greater the number of states, the greater diversity of systems.
Further, with fewer states to worry about don't corporations find it much easier to lobby those in power as they don't have to concern themselves with multiple governments?
And given the economic power of corporations compared to Joe publc isn't this something you would be wary of?
[1]I would have thought that the greater the number of states, the greater diversity of systems.
[2]Further, with fewer states to worry about don't corporations find it much easier to lobby those in power as they don't have to concern themselves with multiple governments?
And given the economic power of corporations compared to Joe publc isn't this something you would be wary of?
1.Hardly. Look at Europe over the past 25 years - far more countries, all practising Capitalism. Diversity?
2. The major means of production would be nationalised in those fewer Socialist states. What corporate power are you speaking of?
Comments
Are you feeling alright?
I would have thought that is self-evident. If you have a country that is broken up into, say, four pieces, the populations of those states will be smaller than the previous bigger state, won't they?
Any analysis as to why you come to that conclusion or is this yet another one of your dogma laden posts?
Britain is a small plot on a global scale. Far smaller in proportion than the relevant sizes of Sotland and the UK.
You aren't very consistent are you.
You post under the misapprehension that all nationlist movements are the same.
Thats as idiotic as saying all socialist models are the same.
Sounds like you are against decolonisation? Are you saying any country under the yoke of imperialism should not seek self determination as that is a nationlist movement?
Dogma? It is my low opinion of nationalism.
One of the curses of the political scene, wherever it is to be found.
I'm not with you. Consistent in what?
I want to see a Socialist GB/NI.
Together we stand. Divided we fall.
The analogy of Scotland as being under some sort of imperialist yoke is spurious.
Scottish Capitalists down the centuries have been jus as culpable as English and Welsh Capitalists in the creation of Empire.
But you are a UK nationalist, you just do not realise it.
What about all those Scots who lose their jobs when Trident leaves.?
strawman
I didn't mention Scotland.
So we will try again.
Are you in favour of decolonisation from an imperial power, even though that would be considered nationalism?
Following what you have posted about nationalist movements here you must be against that.
What about all those Scots who would get jobs when Faslane becomes a conventional weapons naval base?
So a society based on a national identity?
isn't that...........nationalist?
I am just as anti-imperialist as I am anti- nationalist.
Anti-imperialist movements are not necessarily nationalistic. Many of the Marxist groups that fought imperialism in Africa for instance could hardly be called so.
Socialism is inherently internationalist. It doesn't emphasise national identity as an underlying trait to be promoted, but a commonweal of all men.
But some are.
So some nationalist anti imperialist movements and thus, nationalist movements, are alright in your view.
Glad we cleared that up. For a minute I thought you were of the opinion that colonies of imperial powers should just accept their lot.
So why did you mention GB/NI?
Not very 'internationaist' to focus on one country.
Because I was speaking of this nation. You have to start somewhere.
The distant prospect of Socialism is getting even further away thanks to the mania of nationalism splitting the world into smaller and smaller parts.
Nationalism is more likely to create larger states due to one country subsuming smaller nation states.
Really?
I would have thought that the greater the number of states, the greater diversity of systems.
Further, with fewer states to worry about don't corporations find it much easier to lobby those in power as they don't have to concern themselves with multiple governments?
And given the economic power of corporations compared to Joe publc isn't this something you would be wary of?
1.Hardly. Look at Europe over the past 25 years - far more countries, all practising Capitalism. Diversity?
2. The major means of production would be nationalised in those fewer Socialist states. What corporate power are you speaking of?
Scotland doesnt need two naval bases.
Who put you in charge of the Scots Navy
Are there any imperial powers left with colonies is what I would reply to you?