Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,634
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Dec 12, 2023 11:33:00 GMT
You are insane. How can a man who wears a hat worth more than your entire town be down to earth? Look at the wording - the most down to earth of them. I'd also suggest that's their uniform. He doesn't CHOOSE to wear that hat. If he chose opulence then it's a different story. I can imagine that I've got more in common with Charles than thousands of trust fund kids, footballers, etc. But thats still absolutely meaningless. Its like saying out of all the recent mass murderers, Fred West was the kindest to animals. And of course he CHOSE to wear it. They make it up as they go along. All the traditions people get patriot boners over are relatively new inventions. He's the fucking king, of course he can say 'nah, no hat and magic wand, I'm good. And dont bother with oiling my tits in that tent, either'. |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,634
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Dec 12, 2023 11:34:06 GMT
I can’t see the Royal Family being abolished any time soon but I do wonder whether at some point they will be set up to effectively run as a business and no longer be state funded. We’re constantly told that they bring in more money than they cost as justification for their continuation, so it shouldn’t be an issue. Even if that were true, which is isnt, we established in 2016 that we were happy to sacrifice the economy at the alter of getting rid of unelected officials. |
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Dec 12, 2023 11:36:33 GMT
Abolishing the Royal Family will not solve much, because their continued existence is as much a symptom as a cause of the deep inequality that exists in this country. It's baked in to our "political class" (dominated by Oxbridge PPE graduates from public school) our tax system (taxing income from wealth lighter than income from labour), to our legislature (house of fucking *lords*: clue's in the name). People who have surnames of Norman descent are wealthier than those that aren't, so we're still in the long tail of the 1066 invasion. It's fucked.
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 11:38:36 GMT
I can’t see the Royal Family being abolished any time soon but I do wonder whether at some point they will be set up to effectively run as a business and no longer be state funded. We’re constantly told that they bring in more money than they cost as justification for their continuation, so it shouldn’t be an issue. Even if that were true, which is isnt, we established in 2016 that we were happy to sacrifice the economy at the alter of getting rid of unelected officials. The scaling down of the Royal Family to core members and ones that actually do some work was a step in the right direction. I don’t think further reform is impossible or even unlikely, especially with the current economic climate and the prospect of a Labour government. |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,634
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Dec 12, 2023 11:42:44 GMT
Im not saying it would solve all of our problems but it would be a good start. We are such a backwards looking nation of nostalgia fantasists and I think they are at the core of that. Like I genuinely dont think Brexit would have passed if we werent so nostalgic for Empire.
And if it doesnt change anything, who gives a fuck, they had a good 1000 year run.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,634
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Dec 12, 2023 11:47:15 GMT
The scaling down of the Royal Family to core members and ones that actually do some work was a step in the right direction. I don’t think further reform is impossible or even unlikely, especially with the current economic climate and the prospect of a Labour government. I dont think there would be an appetite for it. Most people dont care and the ones who do would be deafening. Starmers beige pragmatism would win out. I think the most likely solution would be tell them they are now self sustaining and allow them to cosplay in their ermines and live in their castles for as long as they can be bothered. Just annex them like the circus animals they are and let them perform like clapping seals for people in polyester union jack suits. |
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Dec 12, 2023 11:47:46 GMT
As far as I can see a lot/most of home nation nationalism centers purely on 'fuck the english'. England’s history of violence and oppression doesn’t really do it many favours with the other home nations. But I do think there’s a more general optimism in their nationalism than there is in English nationalism. The whole 4 nations within one nation is really weird, if you think about it. I can't think of many other places that have done anything like that.
Usually the smaller regions would get assimilated into the larger one, Cornwall-style.
If that had happened, I wonder how UK identity and nationalism would be now. I imagine there's still be some minor separatist movement, like Cornish nationalists, but would there be a more united British national identity that wasn't permanently reminded of divisions by sporting rivalries.
In many ways Japan is similar to the UK. Island nation with 4 main areas. But there's very little sense of those areas having separate national identity to the central Japanese one. Which doesn't mean they don't have strong regional identity and pride (I'd argue in many ways stronger than in the UK), and some historical grievances, but there's never any sense that they are separate nations or aren't all proud of Japan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Dec 12, 2023 11:49:18 GMT
Oh absolutely. I'd be well up for just getting rid. There risk of harm is approximately nil and in terms of practically identifying what needs to be done to that end it would be a piece of piss.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Dec 12, 2023 11:51:06 GMT
Nuts are an allergy, how about "hypoallergenic nationalism"? /hj Well, this way semantics lie, and words have multiple meanings and you can chose the one that most aligns with what you believe and makes you look good. I'm not the arbiter.
But....that's not what most people mean by civic nationalism, fwiw. The civic bit is to signify that you're still tolerant and progressive, while at the same time working from the axiom that national identity has primacy as a political concept. I think that's horseshit, personally, as any political ideology based on identity involves having an out group, and as soon as you have that human psychology weaponises that as a heuristic for coping with reality and you end up with lines drawn in sand and someone else to blame for everything.
I would argue that the political assemblies of any nation in the does not represent the ultimate expression of that nation's culture. People are generally more moderate than the politicians they elect, and in England in particular FPTP fucks that up good and proper. (the old chestnut of Tories not even getting the majority of the vote *in England* despite having a 80 seat majority at the last GE).
EDLs might call themselves nationalists, but the issues they tackle and ideas they express make them ethnic nationalists specifically. Or, you know, racists.
I get where you’re coming from but I think there is an expression of national identity that can be liberal and inclusive and rooted in the cultural understanding of a place and lived experience of people rather than the exclusionary nationalism that is rooted, ultimately, in race and myths of manifest destiny. I’m not saying that parties like the SNP or Plaid are faultless saints but the type of nationalism they express appears to favour the former over the latter. While accepting that by its nature you’re always going to have a degree of exclusion in a definition of nationalism, there is a difference in what they do compared to what you see from the Conservative Party in England. I suppose separating it from the conversation about the home nations - one of the main dividing principles would be can you move there and be accepted as a proud member of the community or would you be considered an outsider forever? And that’s never going to be a hard and fast rule but I think an evolving sense of identity is possible within a politics that could be considered nationalist. Whether any nationalism is good or bad is obviously a different conversation but I think you can make distinctions between ideologies beneath that umbrella. |
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 11:57:11 GMT
The scaling down of the Royal Family to core members and ones that actually do some work was a step in the right direction. I don’t think further reform is impossible or even unlikely, especially with the current economic climate and the prospect of a Labour government. I dont think there would be an appetite for it. Most people dont care and the ones who do would be deafening. Starmers beige pragmatism would win out. I think the most likely solution would be tell them they are now self sustaining and allow them to cosplay in their ermines and live in their castles for as long as they can be bothered. Just annex them like the circus animals they are and let them perform like clapping seals for people in polyester union jack suits. I mean you’re countering something that would be difficult but possible with something that clearly won’t happen. Total self-sufficiency won’t happen but the model for reducing the scope and cost of the Monarchy is pretty well trodden at this point. They did it in Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium etc. I really don’t think even the most staunch Royalists give a shit about Lucas Tindel (or indeed anyone else). To be fair it’s Charles himself that’s mostly been pushing for it so I’m sure it will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Dec 12, 2023 11:57:48 GMT
I'm a little unqualified to speak on the subject, I was mostly riffing off the "nutters" part 😅
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Dec 12, 2023 12:09:52 GMT
"I get where you’re coming from but I think there is an expression of national identity that can be liberal and inclusive and rooted in the cultural understanding of a place and lived experience of people rather than the exclusionary nationalism that is rooted, ultimately, in race and myths of manifest destiny. " You can, of course, define that concept in the abstract. However, in reality something gets in the way: people. There are multiple psychological studies that show you can assign people the most neutral and arbitrary group identifiers, and they end up hating the other group and acting like cunts towards them. There are plenty of real world examples of this: the Rwandan genocide was fought between two groups of people who only exist because the Belgians wanted a simple categorical way of dealing with the people they found there. So sure, you can have "civic nationalism" as an ideal, but it's up there with "Miss World Stood on Stage Wishing for World Peace" in terms of practical ways of improving the world. (ofc, you can't deny people their national identity either, as that just reinforces the narrative. The tragedy is we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again, arguing like toddlers over bullshit.)
edit: misspelling Rwandan, in this thread, with the current news? What am I like
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,634
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Dec 12, 2023 12:10:19 GMT
I mean you’re countering something that would be difficult but possible with something that clearly won’t happen. I mis-read your post, basically. I dont know the accounts of the other royal families but I suspect the difference is that our royal family are perfectly capable of being a private entity. In return for us not effectively seizing their assets 'the crown estate' should be used pay for *everything*. Its worth 15bn and generates 300m a year. Its absolutely obscene that we have to put our hands in our pockets for anything. |
|
senso
New Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by senso on Dec 12, 2023 12:11:50 GMT
The Royal family will never be 'downgraded' to a private venture as their status is needed by the MPs and other ruling classes to make decisions that benefit themselves (no I don't own a tinfoil hat).
The Royal Prerogative is too good a get out of jail free card to be lost. Add to that how ingrained the royal family are in both the political and military institutions of this country and it will be a mess to try to pull apart and re-design. And it is deliberately configured that way.
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 12:20:42 GMT
|
|
technoish
Junior Member
Posts: 2,776
Member is Online
|
Post by technoish on Dec 12, 2023 12:57:00 GMT
England’s history of violence and oppression doesn’t really do it many favours with the other home nations. But I do think there’s a more general optimism in their nationalism than there is in English nationalism. The whole 4 nations within one nation is really weird, if you think about it. I can't think of many other places that have done anything like that.
Usually the smaller regions would get assimilated into the larger one, Cornwall-style.
If that had happened, I wonder how UK identity and nationalism would be now. I imagine there's still be some minor separatist movement, like Cornish nationalists, but would there be a more united British national identity that wasn't permanently reminded of divisions by sporting rivalries.
In many ways Japan is similar to the UK. Island nation with 4 main areas. But there's very little sense of those areas having separate national identity to the central Japanese one. Which doesn't mean they don't have strong regional identity and pride (I'd argue in many ways stronger than in the UK), and some historical grievances, but there's never any sense that they are separate nations or aren't all proud of Japan.
Okinawa? |
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 13:10:00 GMT
I think the nuances of how other nations work is completely alien to those on the outside, particularly huge landmass nations like Russia or China that we tend to homogenise and talk about as one big thing which they very much are not. I wouldn’t presume to think our set up is any weirder or unusual than many others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Dec 12, 2023 13:16:04 GMT
The whole 4 nations within one nation is really weird, if you think about it. I can't think of many other places that have done anything like that.
Usually the smaller regions would get assimilated into the larger one, Cornwall-style.
If that had happened, I wonder how UK identity and nationalism would be now. I imagine there's still be some minor separatist movement, like Cornish nationalists, but would there be a more united British national identity that wasn't permanently reminded of divisions by sporting rivalries.
In many ways Japan is similar to the UK. Island nation with 4 main areas. But there's very little sense of those areas having separate national identity to the central Japanese one. Which doesn't mean they don't have strong regional identity and pride (I'd argue in many ways stronger than in the UK), and some historical grievances, but there's never any sense that they are separate nations or aren't all proud of Japan.
Okinawa? Even in okinawa, despite their complex history and their feeling that the mainland doesn't always treat them fairly, there doesn't seem to be much of a separatist or anti-japanese sentiment. At least not that I'm aware of. I think the nuances of how other nations work is completely alien to those on the outside, particularly huge landmass nations like Russia or China that we tend to homogenise and talk about as one big thing which they very much are not. I wouldn’t presume to think our set up is any weirder or unusual than many others. True. But I'm not aware of any other country that treats its regions as separate countries, with separate flags and separate national sports teams etc.. There may be some that I'm unaware of.
The Soviet Union? I must admit I'm not really up on their internal history and how they treated all the stans.
Either way, it's a weird way to run a country / 4 countries and create a spirit of national unity.
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 13:33:51 GMT
The USA behaves almost exactly that way.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 3,010
Member is Online
|
Post by zephro on Dec 12, 2023 13:35:48 GMT
England’s history of violence and oppression doesn’t really do it many favours with the other home nations. But I do think there’s a more general optimism in their nationalism than there is in English nationalism. The whole 4 nations within one nation is really weird, if you think about it. I can't think of many other places that have done anything like that.
Usually the smaller regions would get assimilated into the larger one, Cornwall-style.
If that had happened, I wonder how UK identity and nationalism would be now. I imagine there's still be some minor separatist movement, like Cornish nationalists, but would there be a more united British national identity that wasn't permanently reminded of divisions by sporting rivalries.
In many ways Japan is similar to the UK. Island nation with 4 main areas. But there's very little sense of those areas having separate national identity to the central Japanese one. Which doesn't mean they don't have strong regional identity and pride (I'd argue in many ways stronger than in the UK), and some historical grievances, but there's never any sense that they are separate nations or aren't all proud of Japan.
There's 2 main threads to this. 19th Century Romanticism/Nationalism and the World Wars. OK with a bit of just historical legacy thrown in. The boring one is the long history of countries accreting over time. So vague blobbing up over time draws various French-like people into the country of France and the King of France and over time become "The French", Brittany was one of the longest hold outs, Breton is still more of a thing than the Normans. Japan unified a long, long time ago and has been roughly the same shape for a long time. There's still the Ainu and Ryukyu though. However, until the 20th century. Multi-national states are generally the norm. Nationalism isn't even a real thing until the 19th Century. So until the 19th century people barely thought about it. Then you have a few things happen that is only partially acted upon. So there's the French Revolution, which is framed as the rights of the French people. Not the various subjects of the French King (which includes Wallonians, Germans etc.). Which kind of kicks of the idea of national "peoples", it has earlier precursors but that's a good demarcation point. Then you have the unification of Italy and Germany later on. People actually had the idea to unify various groups that were a "nation" in some sense, it wasn't a particularly going concern before that. Though even then 19th Century Italy and Germany contain significant populations and territories that aren't theres anymore. Prussia, which gives the name to the people who unified Germany, is these days wholly within Poland and the Old Prussians were a Baltic people. Italy contained a bunch of Austrians in the Tyrol and Croations, as some moron just went "The Roman Empire south of the Alps" ignoring who actually lived there. Then the World Wars happen. So the settlement after WW1 in general breaks up the old European countries/empires into Nation States, which is a brand new thing. So Poland re-appears from Germany/Austro-Hungary, Hungary re-appears, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Serbia, Iraq, Turkey, the Baltic states, Finland etc. etc. etc. Except the borders for most of these were done fucking awfully. So the few years after WW1 officially ends in 1918 is full of border skirmishes, transfers of populations, massacres. The Greeks went as far as to invade western Turkey, because western Turkey used to be Greek in Ancient time, causing a fuck load of massacres. Then once WW2 finally ends and all the killing has stopped, there's another bunch of evictions/transfers of people and the nation-states are put in place that we mostly know now. So part of the answer is basically ethnic cleansing. The UK basically side steps all of this. It has it's revolution early on when the nations involved are a loose union, and it's more about religion at that point in history. Instead of an idealistic revolution at any point it just fudges together a super-national "British" identity to cobble on to the top of what exists. Though that really forms during the French Revolutionary wars e.g. it's a "Not French, fight the fucking French". Then ends up on the winning side in WW1 and 2. Though the Irish Civil War still happens obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Dec 12, 2023 13:47:43 GMT
The USA behaves almost exactly that way. There are one similarities, but I'd say the way they approach it is totally different. I'm not sure anyone considers California a country.
The UK is a country.
England is a country.
Scotland is a country. How does that work?
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Dec 12, 2023 13:54:37 GMT
The USA behaves almost exactly that way. There are one similarities, but I'd say the way they approach it is totally different. I'm not sure anyone considers California a country.
The UK is a country.
England is a country.
Scotland is a country. How does that work?
I guess what I’m getting at is it’s less “our set up is unique and strange and everyone else’s isn’t”, and more “all countries are unique and strange in different ways”. And again I really wouldn’t presume to understand how this sort of thing works somewhere like Indonesia for example. I’m sure there’s all sorts of complexity of national identity across their many completely different islands. |
|
|
|
Post by elstoof on Dec 12, 2023 13:56:06 GMT
The UK is a nation state
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Dec 12, 2023 14:19:57 GMT
The USA behaves almost exactly that way. There are one similarities, but I'd say the way they approach it is totally different. I'm not sure anyone considers California a country.
The UK is a country.
England is a country.
Scotland is a country. How does that work?
The technical answer is that England, Scotland and Wales are self regarding nations, while the UK is a nation *state*. A nation is just a shared sense of identity based on culture, history, language, dress, food, badges, branded pens, whatever. A nation state is a political entity that organises itself around a nation: the idea having a geographically defined area where people identify as having a common identity allows for an efficient way of organising and getting stuff done. I can't remember exactly who came up with idea, but it was an idea much discussed by contemporaries of Rousseau and the like. As mentioned above, it's actually quite a modern idea in terms of the full length of European history. It emerged as a system of political organisation to address the failure of empires which were failing for various reasons.
The real answer is that every generation rises to sentience in a world of several layers of fossilised compromises and bodge jobs which have iteratively piled on top of each other for millennia, going back to petty kingdoms and tribes who's names are long forgotten.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 3,010
Member is Online
|
Post by zephro on Dec 12, 2023 14:20:47 GMT
The USA behaves almost exactly that way. There are one similarities, but I'd say the way they approach it is totally different. I'm not sure anyone considers California a country.
The UK is a country.
England is a country.
Scotland is a country. How does that work?
Country is a vague word. It can mean nation, state, territory etc. So the more specific terminology is the UK is a state, Scotland is a nation. Within a multi-national state. Country can be fudged in as any of those words. Also the UK is specifically not a nation state. Neither is Belgium. |
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Dec 12, 2023 14:30:57 GMT
Oh don't, I've got to do the fucking Stuarts later. Can't we just all laugh at Rishi again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Dec 12, 2023 19:11:41 GMT
Head bangers will abstain, so it'll pass. But either way, he's on a collision course at 3rd Reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Dec 12, 2023 19:22:43 GMT
Sunak is at the "I just need to keep my head above water for a bit longer" stage, Parliament will go into Christmas recess and then this bullshit will come back again and he's hoping something happens that will distract everyone, like an alien invasion or something.
He could, of course, have kicked Braverman and this stupid policy into touch when the Supreme Court said "fuck off" but he's so shit at politics he didn't take a way out when it was flashing in huge neon letters.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 3,010
Member is Online
|
Post by zephro on Dec 12, 2023 19:36:47 GMT
So on none of them do a majority think they're doing well. On all but 2 a majority think they're doing badly. Only 1 of them do more people think they're doing well than badly.
That's so damning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Dec 12, 2023 19:49:51 GMT
|
|
