The Huskar Social Union wrote:Wana see a 68 year old and six times elected MP act like a complete and utter child over something soo dumb and uniquely northern irish? Watch this.
Focusing on the important things.
Advertisement
by Dakini » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:13 pm
The Huskar Social Union wrote:Wana see a 68 year old and six times elected MP act like a complete and utter child over something soo dumb and uniquely northern irish? Watch this.
by The Huskar Social Union » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:16 pm
Dakini wrote:The Huskar Social Union wrote:Wana see a 68 year old and six times elected MP act like a complete and utter child over something soo dumb and uniquely northern irish? Watch this.
by Philjia » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:18 pm
The Huskar Social Union wrote:Wana see a 68 year old and six times elected MP act like a complete and utter child over something soo dumb and uniquely northern irish? Watch this.
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by Chan Island » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:24 pm
The Nihilistic view wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
That's an oversimplification.
Wales was definitively conquered by Norman England in 1282, and then was legally merged into the Kingdom of England in the first half of the 16th century.
Scotland and England became part of the same country via the King of Scotland inheriting the English throne, and the two kingdoms agreeing a century later to abolish their historical parliaments to form a new joint Parliament of Great Britain. This next point is often ignored but is constitutionally important, but both the historical parliaments of England and Scotland ceased to exist in 1707; the body that met after the 1707 Acts of Union was constitutionally an entirely new Parliament of Great Britain, though it met at the home of the abolished English Parliament.
The processes whereby Wales, Scotland, and England became part of a unified state are therefore historically distinct.
When new devolved legislatures were introduced for both Scotland and Wales in 1998, devolution was asymmetrical. The Scottish Parliament was given greater powers than the Welsh Assembly (now the Welsh Senedd). This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government of the day; whether it was the right decision is a separate matter.
In any case, the constitutional histories of Scotland and Wales are distinct. It's also worth stressing that Scotland formed a distinctive independent state as recently as 1707, whereas Wales was only ever ever briefly unified under a single ruler prior to 1282, under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn from 1057-1063.
It's not wholly incorrect to state that Wales was functionally politically united to England from the 1540s through 1998, though the majority of Wales remained highly culturally distinct throughout most of that period. The problem comes when someone writes 'Wales is just a semi-autonomous part of England' without attempting any broader context or nuance, and thereby implicitly - whether intentionally or not - discards any sense of Welsh identity in service of an ideological English nationalism (one masquerading as British nationalism) that inherently rejects not just Wales's historical cultural distinctiveness, but also any apparent sense of Wales as its own distinct national component within a broader state.
Perhaps implied if you reject different distinct regional differences between parts of England (or even parts of Wales). Treating England as one harmogenous mass is probably just as bad. You don't have to reject Welsh identity automatically by saying that it became part of England. Devon and Cornwall, and Yorkshire are as different to each other as they each are to Wales. I imagine actually you'd probably say Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with Yorkshire. Parts of Wales are probably closer to what people imagine being English to be than some Cornish towns. It's perhaps getting less in the modern day than say 100 years ago. You don't have to invalidate current cultural differences to recognise events of the past.
The other difficulty here is you have to accept England has a distinct identity and in that I'm not sure England has ever really developed a national identity in the way the other countries have. Its really always been made up of its regional identities up to now. I actually couldn't begin to suggest what an coherent English identity is. Which is funny because this all started because people assumed I was crapping on the Welsh. Out of all of the UK England is the country I actually think doesn't really have a distinct identity. Cricket and moris dancing, that's all I've got.
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by The Nihilistic view » Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:34 pm
Chan Island wrote:The Nihilistic view wrote:
Perhaps implied if you reject different distinct regional differences between parts of England (or even parts of Wales). Treating England as one harmogenous mass is probably just as bad. You don't have to reject Welsh identity automatically by saying that it became part of England. Devon and Cornwall, and Yorkshire are as different to each other as they each are to Wales. I imagine actually you'd probably say Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with Yorkshire. Parts of Wales are probably closer to what people imagine being English to be than some Cornish towns. It's perhaps getting less in the modern day than say 100 years ago. You don't have to invalidate current cultural differences to recognise events of the past.
The other difficulty here is you have to accept England has a distinct identity and in that I'm not sure England has ever really developed a national identity in the way the other countries have. Its really always been made up of its regional identities up to now. I actually couldn't begin to suggest what an coherent English identity is. Which is funny because this all started because people assumed I was crapping on the Welsh. Out of all of the UK England is the country I actually think doesn't really have a distinct identity. Cricket and moris dancing, that's all I've got.
That's a ... remarkable post.
I'll keep this to 3 points.
1) An identity doesn't have to be coherent to be valid. Heck, just look at Scotland which has big differences between the Highlands, Lowlands, Borders and the Islands, yet we readily ascribe to them the common monicker of "Scottish". Including a great number of people who happily identify themselves with that label while ignoring that their experience of life is not the same as those from other parts of the same nation.
2) You bring up Cornwall and Yorkshire, but on reflection I think we bring them up a lot in this debate precisely because they are very distinct anomalies in the greater English whole. Can you readily define the differences between Hampshire and Wiltshire? Or Berkshire from Rutland from Lincolnshire? I'm sure if you asked people from those distinct areas they'll find something unique, but for the most part these are notably quiet.
There are some regions in England that absolutely have their own character which people strongly identify with- Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, London and a couple of the other major cities or university towns. At a stretch maybe Essex and Kent. But apart from a few vague generalities like north and south, the rest of England is remarkably devoid of distinct regional affiliations. Certainly much more so than any other country I can think of. Heck, we even foist the idea of the Midlands on a large part of the country without the entire consent of the people who live there, who often choose to pick a side between north and south.
3) It's not hard to think of many commonalities across England. Love of football, pubs, chanting when someone drops a tray in the canteen, the class system, tolerance (though often not good at showing it, by world standards England is extraordinarily tolerant), tea, valuing animals far more than our fellow humans, dry humour, Harry Potter, fish&chips...
If I may be so bold, perhaps this is one of those instances where you are being like a fish claiming it can't see water. You are so immersed into England and it's culture that you have grown a discerning eye to focus on micro-differences that a foreigner would be hard-pressed to spot.
by The Nihilistic view » Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:47 pm
by Celritannia » Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:10 pm
The Nihilistic view wrote:I don't actually think it's a surprise we have skipped the English part out and were more regional instead. Most English regions with a distinct identity are as large or larger than one or several of the other three countries. When Yorkshire is the size of Scotland in population is it a surprise if in the past somebody from Yorkshire has British and Yorkshire cultural feelings and what links them with somebody from Hampshire is the British element and not any English element? Espechially when English nationalism was something nobody had even thought about until about 2005.
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Borderlands of Rojava » Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:23 pm
Celritannia wrote:The Nihilistic view wrote:I don't actually think it's a surprise we have skipped the English part out and were more regional instead. Most English regions with a distinct identity are as large or larger than one or several of the other three countries. When Yorkshire is the size of Scotland in population is it a surprise if in the past somebody from Yorkshire has British and Yorkshire cultural feelings and what links them with somebody from Hampshire is the British element and not any English element? Espechially when English nationalism was something nobody had even thought about until about 2005.
IIRC, there was a study done where people from Yorkshire feel more closely linked to Scotland than they do England. There is also the fact that many Yorkshire rugby players will play for the Scottish National team since it is harder for them to get into the English National Rugby team.
Yorkshire also once had its own bagpipes until they became extinct back in the 1400s.
These difference within the English Regions is why I support Federalisation. England is not so fused as we have made to believe.
by Hirota » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:44 pm
Given the differences in the median ages of the population of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, I'd be inclined to suggest the difference in vaccine distribution correlates pretty nicely. Given older demographics were prioritised it would make sense older population groups (at least in median terms) in some regions would be prioritised.The Nihilistic view wrote:Dakini wrote:The NHS is devolved and Wales is kicking ass at getting the Welsh people vaccinated. Trying to take credit for that and act like this is just because Wales is basically just England whenever it does something well (but of course, they're Welsh when things don't go well) doesn't endear anyone.
This England is the best, everyone else is terrible shit doesn't endear anyone to the union.
Kicking arse? 6 doses ahead of the rest of the UK average. That's about a week at current pace? You talk like it's six weeks ahead.
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:19 am
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:26 am
by Old Tyrannia » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:35 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:150 teachers in Ofxford refuse to teach any students who come from the college which has a Rhodes statue.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... des-statue
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:46 am
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Celritannia wrote:
IIRC, there was a study done where people from Yorkshire feel more closely linked to Scotland than they do England. There is also the fact that many Yorkshire rugby players will play for the Scottish National team since it is harder for them to get into the English National Rugby team.
Yorkshire also once had its own bagpipes until they became extinct back in the 1400s.
These difference within the English Regions is why I support Federalisation. England is not so fused as we have made to believe.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Alot of Northern English men even sound kind of Scottish, especially Geordies.
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:48 am
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:53 am
The Huskar Social Union wrote:Why did you delete your comment ostro about ostracising progressive left wingers from society, breaking up their meetings and cracking down on them just short of violence? In effect "Outlawing them" you said.
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:54 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:The Huskar Social Union wrote:Why did you delete your comment ostro about ostracising progressive left wingers from society, breaking up their meetings and cracking down on them just short of violence? In effect "Outlawing them" you said.
Figured there'd be no point in keeping it as it's either something people agree with or don't and there's not much discussion to be had. I stand by it though. The only solution to the extremism we're seeing currently is direct action. They can't be talked around. The only solution is to not reward their defections in the prisoner dilemma.
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 am
The Huskar Social Union wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Figured there'd be no point in keeping it as it's either something people agree with or don't and there's not much discussion to be had. I stand by it though. The only solution to the extremism we're seeing currently is direct action. They can't be talked around. The only solution is to not reward their defections in the prisoner dilemma.
Fair enough, was just curious.
by Vassenor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:36 am
by The Free Joy State » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:37 am
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:38 am
No you are right its not fair enough. I misspoke.
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:55 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
No, not fair enough.
What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?
Technically, far-right extremism is the fastest growing terrorism threat in the UK (according to the police), so arguably they should be clamped down on much much more.
by Old Tyrannia » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:59 am
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:03 am
Old Tyrannia wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
No, not fair enough.
What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?
We already ostracise the far-right. There are serious social consequences from expressing far-right views publically. On the other hand, radical left-wingers enjoy a near monopoly on positions within certain sectors of society, particularly academia, the publishing establishment, and televised media. That's why there is more open violence fromthe far-right than the far-left. The former lacks meaningful societal and institutional power, so open violence is one of the few resorts available to them to impose their will on others and make their views known. For the far-left, there is much to lose and little to gain from open violence; it's safer and more effective to advance their goals through institutional power as the Oxford academics opposed to Rhodes' statue are doing.
by The Huskar Social Union » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:23 am
Looks like the DUP and SF are both eager to not have stormont collapse so issues regarding things like the Irish Language are being put on hold till the Autumn. Which most likely means Givan's appointment to the role of FM will not be blocked by SF.SINN Féin and the DUP are expected to defer any potential crisis in the institutions until the autumn, according to Stormont insiders.
It is understood that both parties are keen to avert a showdown next week that could jeopardise devolution.
The resignation of Arlene Foster following tomorrow's British-Irish Council is expected to trigger a week of intensive negotiations over Irish language legislation and other commitments in last year's New Decade New Approach deal.
It has been suggested that if the DUP do not consent to bring forward Irish language legislation soon then Sinn Féin will refuse to back Paul Givan's nomination as first minister.
However, The Irish News has been told that both parties are determined to avoid the "nuclear button" and that a collapse of the institutions, similar to that surrounding the RHI scandal in 2017, has been ruled out due to the challenges posed by Covid and what one Stormont source described as "housekeeping in both parties".
The rift within the DUP has been widely publicised in recent weeks but Sinn Féin has its own internal difficulties, which were recently exposed by the ousting of veteran republican Martina Anderson in Foyle.
There has been widespread speculation that the party is seeking to address difficulties in other constituencies ahead of an assembly election.
Sinn Féin's southern contingent is also eager to avoid any adverse publicity that a collapse of the institutions would bring, as it would impact badly on the party's election ambitions in the Republic.
A Sinn Féin spokesman said speculation of a post-dated deadline for the DUP was "news to me" but Stormont sources have indicated that both parties are "shadow boxing" and that "after the usual hype" the nominations for first and deputy first ministers will be agreed.
"Sinn Féin has its eyes on Mary Lou being taoiseach and they won't let anything jeopardise that - hence the leader's recent hands-on approach at Stormont," the source said.
"Both parties have their own internal housekeeping to deal with, while neither of them wants to be associated with collapsing the institutions, for whatever reason, as we emerge from a pandemic."
Irish News columnist Brian Feeney said he believed the parties would agree a "calender of operations" that would see "give and take on a range of issues".
"It looks like there'll be a post-dated deadline rather than an immediate one, which enables the parties to bed-in and for Sinn Féin to manoeuvre itself onto the moral high ground ahead of any potential collapse," he said.
Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O'Neill yesterday said she wanted more than "fluffy words" from Edwin Poots on his commitment to deliver Irish language legislation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Al-Haqiqah, Czechostan, Daphomir, Deblar, Eahland, Fachumonn, Greater Moonie, Ifreann, Infected Mushroom, Jewish Partisan Division, Opkyo, Pathonia, Rusozak, The Children of Mercy, The Holy Therns
Advertisement