|
Post by jimboo2017 on Dec 28, 2017 16:45:15 GMT
Yes, I thought I had made that clear. But an interesting one. sort of speed read at times - sorry
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,187
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 28, 2017 16:46:11 GMT
Of course we must get back to the main point, half the separatist leaders are trying to dodge the Spanish Judiciary over corruption and tax evasion That's the one thing they share with the PP.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 30, 2017 14:34:25 GMT
Has Spain ever willfully allowed one of its territories to become independent in its entire history? Equatorial Guinea? although grudgingly , even then.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 3, 2018 0:00:38 GMT
You see this^ This here^ This is why we must stand against the face of nationalism whenever it rears it’s ugly head. I am a little late to replying to this but it really is the most simplistic bullshit imaginable. Taking things to an extreme example would you have stood against decolonisation or the break up of the Soviet Union as "ugly nationalism"? The borders of nations should never be considered unalterable and if distinct communities wish to seek independence they should have the right to do so. Dislike of nationalism is a very poor excuse for repudiating such a fundamental principle as self determination.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 3, 2018 0:20:39 GMT
I am a little late to replying to this but it really is the most simplistic bullshit imaginable. Taking things to an extreme example would you have stood against decolonisation or the break up of the Soviet Union as "ugly nationalism"? The borders of nations should never be considered unalterable and if distinct communities wish to seek independence they should the right to do so. Dislike of nationalism is a very poor excuse for repudiating such a fundamental principle as self determination. I advocated opposition to nationalism, you put the bit about being against self determination as well into my mouth. The USSR was an empire, colonies are part of Empires. I am against Empires. But very pro unified nation states. But that was the the very clear implication of your post. I did admit that I cited two extreme examples but how about the former "unified nation state" of Yugoslavia? Would you have opposed the "ugly nationalism" of the Slovenians, amongst others, in seeking independence?
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,387
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 3, 2018 0:41:12 GMT
I certainly would have opposed it - look how it ended up! 140,000 dead! A better solution would have been the removal of Milosovic and the bullshit nationalism he was promoting - that was what drive the reactionary nationalism in the other nations.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,187
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2018 10:32:06 GMT
The problem with Yugoslavia was that Tito groomed no successor. Once he was gone there was little chance of holding it together
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jan 3, 2018 10:49:30 GMT
The problem with Yugoslavia was that Tito groomed no successor. Once he was gone there was little chance of holding it together That was the only problem?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2018 11:40:01 GMT
It was a not insignificant one, though.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,187
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2018 12:27:01 GMT
The problem with Yugoslavia was that Tito groomed no successor. Once he was gone there was little chance of holding it together That was the only problem? In terms of the country remaining a united entity it was certainly the main one. Tito certainly managed to do this effectively and relatively peacefully
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 3, 2018 12:50:02 GMT
For Yugoslavia to have remained united in the long term, there would have had to have been better management of the constitution and the position of Serbs who were the largest nationality. The Serbs had very little influence in Yugoslavia despite their numbers, partly because the state boundaries meant a large proportion lived outside Serbia itself, but mostly because Tito had redesigned the constitution to minimise Serbia. Didn't matter so much when everyone was living under a Communist dictatorship but did matter when moving to democracy and when the other states chose ethnic based nationalist governments.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 3, 2018 14:20:34 GMT
But that was the the very clear implication of your post. I did admit that I cited two extreme examples but how about the former "unified nation state" of Yugoslavia? Would you have opposed the "ugly nationalism" of the Slovenians, amongst others, in seeking independence? Others seem to assume a lot of what I believe as well. I must improve at placing caveats. Yugoslavia is very interesting, was it a Serbian Empire imposed by foreign power? I am leaning towards that view. Note I am against Slovenian nationalism in all cases, the issue is simply whether they are an occupied state that should be liberated (which yes may take the form of nationalism) or a region fighting for independence from an established nation that they are intergrated into. As we are on the topic of the balkans I think the situation in Bosnia is the perfect illustration of why nationalism should be resisted. Some of the what-ifs of history are: what if Yugoslavia had included Bulgaria? Albania? What if a Greater Albania had been created as an independent state, including Kosovo and bits of Macedonia, instead of the smaller version which actually existed? ..... What if a much bigger version of Hungary had emerged after WW1? What if the whole of Scandinavia had developed as a single country 200 years ago? What would we think of as its language(s) or dialect(s)? But anyway.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,187
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2018 16:38:48 GMT
For Yugoslavia to have remained united in the long term, there would have had to have been better management of the constitution and the position of Serbs who were the largest nationality. The Serbs had very little influence in Yugoslavia despite their numbers, partly because the state boundaries meant a large proportion lived outside Serbia itself, but mostly because Tito had redesigned the constitution to minimise Serbia. Didn't matter so much when everyone was living under a Communist dictatorship but did matter when moving to democracy and when the other states chose ethnic based nationalist governments. It could be argued that given subsequent developments marginalizing Serbia wasn't a bad idea. Though yes - any sort of democratic attempt would have failed because the Serbs wouldn't have shared power. Hence it was Tito who held things together. It wasn't unsuccessful by any means - some of their co-operative management schemes were very creative. When I first joined the party one of the most interesting people I met was the late Cllr Bernard Gale who was PPC for Reading South and leader of the small Labour group on Bucks County - he knew a great deal about the workers control schemes and had spent quite a lot of time in what is now Croatia. If Tito had sorted a successor it may have meant a different future but Serbian nationalism appears to require considerable control....
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2018 16:41:14 GMT
Shouldn't be forgotten that the inter-war Yugoslavia *was* Serb-dominated - one thing that made the WW2 years so horrific there.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 3, 2018 16:47:13 GMT
You can't say that (eg) Croatian nationalism is fine but Serb nationalism is wrong. And note the difference: Bosnia and Croatia have (or had, in the case of Croatia) large Serb minority populations. Serbia does not have significant Croat or Bosnian minorities.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2018 16:51:01 GMT
You can't say that (eg) Croatian nationalism is fine but Serb nationalism is wrong. And note the difference: Bosnia and Croatia have (or had, in the case of Croatia) large Serb minority populations. Serbia does not have significant Croat or Bosnian minorities. Never said any such thing, though the record of Serb nationalism in practice over the past century surely can't just be wished away either.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,387
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 3, 2018 17:01:21 GMT
They were all at it Bish. You think Croatian nationalism was any better? Ever heard of the Ustaše, who ruled "Greater Croatia" during WW2?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,607
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2018 17:07:20 GMT
Please don't patronise me, I thought the reference above to WW2 covered that.
And I was massively interested in the 1990s Balkan wars, so I know there were echoes of the Ustashe years in more recent Croatian nationalism.
Also that Milosovic and Tudjman made deeply cynical plans to carve up the rest of ex-Yugoslavia between them.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,387
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 3, 2018 19:22:47 GMT
Lol, only on Vote UK could one be accused of patronising for asking if another knew who ruled Croatia between 1940 and 1945
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 6, 2018 14:10:09 GMT
There's no necessary opposition between being opposed to almost all nationalist movements and recognising a right to self-determination. You just have to want people to decide not to exercise the right.
|
|