Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[cameron]

Yeah, I don't think too many people would mind some sort of transcendent global culture in principle, but thats rather different from just everyone becoming english

[lordcooper]

Yeah, I don't think too many people would mind some sort of transcendent global culture in principle, but thats rather different from just everyone becoming english

That isn't what I was proposing.  There are some fairly large parts of English (and Welsh/Scottish/British/American/Iraqi/Egyptian/Swedish/American/Australian etc etc) culture that I dislike.  I'm more for removing their individual excesses over time and aiming to become Earthlings instead of all these silly little groups of bickering people.

Speaking as a Taff with the traditional massive chip on his shoulder, the source of conflict between the Welsh and English has been the perception that "we are just like them", and a lack of noticing that we are a distinct cultural grouping. Removing the differences seems a poor substitute for making people aware that there are differences betwen people (and apprecitaing these differences), regardless of what race, nationality or cultures are involved.

What are the differences in your eyes, and why are they worth preserving at the potential expense of greater unity?  I can wander into a pub in any part of the UK and the only significant difference I've noticed is that the Irish don't seem to have much truck with the smoking ban

E: I'd even be in favour of a universal language (not necessarily English) if there was a way to prevent Newspeak.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Poor little Cornwall. At least Wales has an active movement. Nobody remembers Cornwall. Nobody (< 500 people) even speaks Cornish anymore.

[Owlbread]

Poor little Cornwall. At least Wales has an active movement. Nobody remembers Cornwall. Nobody (< 500 people) even speaks Cornish anymore.

The Cornish tend to remember Cornwall, provided they aren't English - as is the problem in Scotland, Wales and places like Cornwall, the English tend not to assimilate, though they do on occasion. The effects of that will be far worse on Cornwall because right now they have no autonomy or "official" nationhood. If they stopped voting Lib Dem and started to consider Mebyon Kernow maybe we'd see some Cornish autonomy in an embryonic form.

According to the 2011 census, 557 had Cornish as their main language. The language was revived though, remember. Like Hebrew. I also think it's pretty amazing that even over 500 people would speak that as their main language at home, seeing as I come from a place where more than 5 using Gaelic as a day to day language would be amazing. There's also over 3,500 speakers in total, which is better than Gaelic in Canada. I'm quite optimistic about the future of Cornish. Regardless of how our referendum will do, they will surely gain more autonomy in the near future.

While I definitely support a lot of the professed aims of Plaid Cymru and the SNP (I'm a liberal/socialist who has lived in Wales since the age of two, so identify as Welsh despite having been born in England), I can't quite bring myself to support secession.  The ideal 'end goal' for me has always been the total abolition of national boundaries, which would stand in stark opposition to creating more of them.

On the other hand, I can get behind devolution.  Give people more leeway to rule themselves, but as a semi-autonomous province rather than a separate nation.  Nations go to war with each other.

But here's a problem I've got with that sort of thing. I keep hearing people talking about "narrow nationalism" and "breaking down borders, not creating them" but there is no chance of us breaking down any borders with France or even Ireland in the near future. Dismissing independence and breaking down national boundaries within the UK will only serve to turn us into an even more tightly-knit, parochial, isolated set of islands. I believe that by Balkanizing ourselves (to use a favourite term of Scottish Unionists) we make it easier to integrate into something like the EU, as we have seen in modern Europe as the big nation states have broken down into smaller ones.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But here's a problem I've got with that sort of thing. I keep hearing people talking about "narrow nationalism" and "breaking down borders, not creating them" but there is no chance of us breaking down any borders with France or even Ireland in the near future.

Funny story.

[Sheb]

Italians elections today. Everyone hope Mussolini get kicked out. The guardian got a nice map, but no results on it yet. Of note will be the populist, pro-democratic 5-star movement that seems like an Italian version ofa Pirate Party, policy-wise.

Also, Femen attacked Berlusconi with bare breast. Which is like trying the kid that just emptied the cookie jars by throwing sweets at him. I'm all for bare boobs, but I'm questioning the wisdom of that action.

[andrea]

whoever wins in italy, my bet is on another election taking place in at most a year.

[Zrk2]

Yeah, everything I've heard indicates Italy has a whole heap of parties, and that leads to parliament constantly dissolving.

[GlyphGryph]

I presume Italy has one of those governments that (for some reason) was designed not to work with multiple parties?

I find it hilarious that the US, where we could have a hundred parties in congress and it would probably work BETTER than it does right now, works with multiple parties but multiple parties will never get elected, while systems that seem to have some support for getting multiple parties elected fail spectacularly at having a government structure where the government actually WORKS if multiple parties ARE elected.

[andrea]

it is not just that. There are many parties, yes, but they tend to run together.
in this election, however, we have at least 4 main sides, which is unusual, since 3 of them are taking a very high number of votes ( such a support for a third side is unheard of in my lifetime).
Furthermore, there is a fair chance that one of the houses of the parliament will go to the left, and one to the right. since the parliament holds all the power here (unlike for example in the US where you still have a president), a split parliament means no chance to pass any law.
and even if both houses are won by the left, or by the right, the senate will still lack a decent majority. and should the right be the one that wins( they currently have the lead in the senate), they will have great trouble because we have life senators ( ex presidents of the republic, and a few important people, usually nobel prizes), and they are usually leftist.

alliances aren't possible or even useful, because the 5-star movement took 1/3 of the vote, and declared its unwillingness to ally. left and right can't really do a long term alliance after the last 2 years.

said with less words: it is an huge, huge mess.

edit: yes, italian government isn't the best possible one to deal with multiple parties. It is assumed that parties will band together, and push a compromise program. But sometimes, it breaks.
a corrupt political class doesn't help either, but that is another matter.

[Owlbread]

Funny story.

Funny story, but that's all it is. No chance in hell.

I'm also very interested to see how the situation in Italy pans out. A stable, politically secure Italy would be very beneficial to the Eurozone, although the Venetians are getting quite uppity with their independence movement I hear.

[PanH]

Funny story.

Funny story, but that's all it is. No chance in hell.

The Fourth Republic just wanted the queen as "head" of state 

[10ebbor10]

It would probably have screwded over Europe though. A french-britain union would have made a European Union improbably, meaning that there would be no economic limitations preventing a third iteration of death destruction and doomstuff.

((Oh , and it isn't as unlikely as you think. Britain used to be French. And then France used to be british(partly). And then some more shennanigans happened))

[Owlbread]

It would probably have screwded over Europe though. A french-britain union would have made a European Union improbably, meaning that there would be no economic limitations preventing a third iteration of death destruction and doomstuff.

((Oh , and it isn't as unlikely as you think. Britain used to be French. And then France used to be british(partly). And then some more shennanigans happened))

But Britain was never "French". England and Wales ended up getting ruled by the Normans who weren't French (they were Norman) and then all sorts of nonsense happened. Scotland on the other hand was not Norman in the same way that England and Wales were, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed independent. We just ended up with a Norman royal family, but even they became Gaelicised and Scotticised.

[10ebbor10]

It would probably have screwded over Europe though. A french-britain union would have made a European Union improbably, meaning that there would be no economic limitations preventing a third iteration of death destruction and doomstuff.

((Oh , and it isn't as unlikely as you think. Britain used to be French. And then France used to be british(partly). And then some more shennanigans happened))

But Britain was never "French". England and Wales ended up getting ruled by the Normans who weren't French (they were Norman) and then all sorts of nonsense happened. Scotland on the other hand was not Norman in the same way that England and Wales were, otherwise we wouldn't have stayed independent. We just ended up with a Norman royal family, but even they became Gaelicised and Scotticised.

The Normans were the French(Not the french royal family(not at that moment)) but still french. They spoke French, acted french, and were French.

But yeah, these kind of discussions are rather problematic, as pretty much everyone in Europe has been everywhere at some point.