Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Experts. Plural. I'm on my phone which for some reason won't let me quote, apologies if I didn't make that clear. I think you have a very top down definition of nation states, which implies a passive, placated people who totally buy into the concept. The truth, particularly in Japan, is that there are swathes of the population who buy into the state not one iota more than you buy into the concept of a one nation conservative Westminster. This includes the mainland, as well as the "disputed territories." With regards to Korea, I think the artificiality of the border as well as the basket case to the North overplays any one-nation identity. Yes, the way the state actually works determines the way I think of the state. How remiss of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yes, the way the state actually works determines the way I think of the state. How remiss of me. That's not necessarily how states work. For someone who leans towards the libertarian viewpoint, you seem to have a very state-centric view of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 That's not necessarily how states work. For someone who leans towards the libertarian viewpoint, you seem to have a very state-centric view of society. I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about the state. Japan is a nation-state based on its constitution, its laws and the implementation thereof. I have no doubt that as in any liberal democracy there are huge disagreements within civil society about these laws, but the laws exist and they're being acted upon, rendering Japan one of the clearest examples of the nation-state in the world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about the state. Japan is a nation-state based on its constitution, its laws and the implementation thereof. I have no doubt that as in any liberal democracy there are huge disagreements within civil society about these laws, but the laws exist and they're being acted upon, rendering Japan one of the clearest examples of the nation-state in the world today. Would you not agree authority comes from consent, and that the absence of consent does more than simply retard the state? Especially in a country where there is a sizeable, if not particularly powerful, separatist movement which does not identify with central government. I would also argue that international relations exists on multiple levels - the constitution of Japan is inherently antiquated, particularly in the sense which the actions of the state are increasingly performed by non or inter-governmental agencies. Nation-statehood is a two way deal, in my view, but obviously not in yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Experts. Plural. I'm on my phone which for some reason won't let me quote, apologies if I didn't make that clear. I think you have a very top down definition of nation states, which implies a passive, placated people who totally buy into the concept. The truth, particularly in Japan, is that there are swathes of the population who buy into the state not one iota more than you buy into the concept of a one nation conservative Westminster. The ainu separatist movement, for example. This includes the mainland, as well as the "disputed territories." The point is, in every case of where the concept of a nation exists within a constitution, it is directly challenged and often results in instability of government. With regards to Korea, you have more of a point. I'm sorry but I is getting confused what has this got to do with anything relating to Scotland's independence...Scotland is not a concept, Scotland does exist, it might not currently be a sovereign nation, but its still a nation nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Would you not agree authority comes from consent, and that the absence of consent does more than simply retard the state? Especially in a country where there is a sizeable, if not particularly powerful, separatist movement which does not identify with central government. I would also argue that international relations exists on multiple levels - the constitution of Japan is inherently antiquated, particularly in the sense which the actions of the state are increasingly performed by non or inter-governmental agencies. Nation-statehood is a two way deal, in my view, but obviously not in yours. Yes, the state's authority derives from the consent of the governed. There is no meaningful challenge to the legitimacy of Japan's system of government. Are you seriously, genuinely arguing that there is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Would you not agree authority comes from consent, and that the absence of consent does more than simply retard the state? Especially in a country where there is a sizeable, if not particularly powerful, separatist movement which does not identify with central government. I would also argue that international relations exists on multiple levels - the constitution of Japan is inherently antiquated, particularly in the sense which the actions of the state are increasingly performed by non or inter-governmental agencies. Nation-statehood is a two way deal, in my view, but obviously not in yours. Im sure that sounded good in your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I'm sorry but I is getting confused what has this got to do with anything relating to Scotland's independence...Scotland is not a concept, Scotland does exist, it might not currently be a sovereign nation, but its still a nation nonetheless. Nobody's questioning that. What I'm saying is the idea of nationhood is not a good grounds for a yes platform. Scotland as a nation-state is the concept I disagree with. Yes, the state's authority derives from the consent of the governed. There is no meaningful challenge to the legitimacy of Japan's system of government. Are you seriously, genuinely arguing that there is? Yes I am. In a country where the government changes every six months, I think there's a growing movement both in the North, in the South and on the "disputed territories" which identify with centres other than Tokyo. Japan isn't ethnically homogenous either, by the way. Certain ethnicities have been excluded to the point of isolation, but they do still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Incredible that in a country with such burgeoning anti-state feeling the general election turnout remains comfortably within 10% of that of presumably "bottom-up" nation-state Israel. This is getting really, really stupid, in any case: we've gone from discussing the state as it's set up and run to hypothetical "identification centres", which are nowhere near the same thing. It's possible for there to be a nation state with many centres of power. Think of Germany until the late 1990s for the ultimate example: a federal state, but very much a nation-state as well. (If anything it's actually become less centralised in terms of power since much of its ethnic nationalism was done away with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Incredible that in a country with such burgeoning anti-state feeling the general election turnout remains comfortably within 10% of that of presumably "bottom-up" nation-state Israel. This is getting really, really stupid, in any case: we've gone from discussing the state as it's set up and run to hypothetical "identification centres", which are nowhere near the same thing. It's possible for there to be a nation state with many centres of power. Think of Germany until the late 1990s for the ultimate example: a federal state, but very much a nation-state as well. (If anything it's actually become less centralised in terms of power since much of its ethnic nationalism was done away with.) They are not the same thing, but they are inextricably linked. But yes, I think our tangent has run its course. Enjoyed talking it over with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I am going to make some mac and cheese with grilled chicken now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I am going to make some mac and cheese with grilled chicken now. Homogenised cheese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endieinreekie Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Homogenised cheese? Depends on the cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 It was a box of Walmart mac'n'cheese, I'd be amazed if there was anything even resembling actual cheese in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 So a brief summary of todays posts... Look, there's a squirrel Theres another one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 So a brief summary of todays posts... ::applause:: Actually, in between sarcasm and abuse, XBL has reiterated what I think is one of the stronger arguments of independence: as individuals, things can't really get worse. The worst case scenario is that things stay pretty much as they are, only without the influence in the EU/UN. Which is why it surprises me to hear him argue that because Scotland is a nation (which it is) it should become a state.I use the terms nation, country, and state interchangeably depending on context. I also use region, province, country, and shire interchangeably. Is it really so important? As I said, I'm just your average kid from tha ghettos, not one of you fancy dan constitutional lawyer types. When it comes to vote, I'm not going to have to reach for the smelling salts and the fainting couch because the question says "Scotland should become an independent country" rather than "nation", "state", or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I see IDS is claiming that he can live on £50 a week. So naturally, there's an online petition asking him to prove it. It's trending on twitter just now, sky news has reported it and it's 50k and rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Hopefully decent British English grey squirrels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dan Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 There does seem to be some substance in this. It has been picked up by a number of journalists. What does everyone else think? http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/200409-david-camerons-cunning-plan-put-the-old-firm-in-england-to-preserve-the-union/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.