4 ms·

Reminds me of the confusing situation of Québec, Canada: "Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québéc

Reminds me of the confusing situation of Québec, Canada: "Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no and the answer will always be no," Harper told the House on Wednesday. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecers-form-a-nation-within-canada-pm-1.624141 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecers-form-a-nation-withi...

sharpercoder 8y ago
Countries within nation states are not uncommon. For example, the Kingdom of The Netherlands consists of multiple countries: The Netherlands, Curacao, Sint Maarten and Aruba. The same can be said for example for the United Kingdom.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Countries within nation states are not uncommon. If it has more than one distinct nation within it, it is a multinational state, not a nation-state. Nation-states have been the dominant (but not universal!) norm for so long that people use “nation-state” when they just mean “state”.
  - vkou 8y ago
    By that definition, Canada is already a multinational state. There is not that much common language, culture, ethnicity between Quebec and, say, Alberta.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > By that definition, Canada is already a multinational state. That was exactly my point.
  - ghkbrew 8y ago
    Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g. New York). I would guess "nation-state" has acquired it's current popular meaning because it is one of the few terms that unambiguously implies sovereignty, which is what the speaker is usually trying to emphasize.
    - hammock 8y ago
      When the United States were created, they were intended to be sovereign (Articles of Confederation)
      - ghkbrew 8y ago
        Sure, that's how they were more or less envisioned. But they are not, leaving us with at least two meanings for the term "state".
        deaddodo 8y ago
        The US isn't the only place to use "states". Austria, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, etc are all based around states. There's an important distinction between "states" and "provinces" that people tend to forget. Provinces are subdivisions of a larger entity, usually a unitary State, and inherit their powers from it. States, on the other hand, grant a central arbiter powers via cession; almost exclusively in the form of a federation or confederation.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  The United Kingdom is the usual example of something which is not a nation state. It’s a state. It has several nations within it.
hammock 8y ago
Read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  Point being?
  - hammock 8y ago
    That it's not confusing if you clarify your definition of "nation." A nation is simply a group of people with common origin, tradition, and language.
    - Raphmedia 8y ago
      Point taken.
captain_perl 8y ago
> Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no Quebec will remain in Canada until the day before their $10+ billion in transfer payments and National Capital Region special treatment is stopped.

sharpercoder 8y ago

Countries within nation states are not uncommon. For example, the Kingdom of The Netherlands consists of multiple countries: The Netherlands, Curacao, Sint Maarten and Aruba. The same can be said for example for the United Kingdom.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Countries within nation states are not uncommon. If it has more than one distinct nation within it, it is a multinational state, not a nation-state. Nation-states have been the dominant (but not universal!) norm for so long that people use “nation-state” when they just mean “state”.
- vkou 8y ago
  By that definition, Canada is already a multinational state. There is not that much common language, culture, ethnicity between Quebec and, say, Alberta.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > By that definition, Canada is already a multinational state. That was exactly my point.
- ghkbrew 8y ago
  Unfortunately, "state" can't be used unambiguously to mean a sovereign political entity, because there are so many states that aren't sovereign (e.g. New York). I would guess "nation-state" has acquired it's current popular meaning because it is one of the few terms that unambiguously implies sovereignty, which is what the speaker is usually trying to emphasize.
  - hammock 8y ago
    When the United States were created, they were intended to be sovereign (Articles of Confederation)
    - ghkbrew 8y ago
      Sure, that's how they were more or less envisioned. But they are not, leaving us with at least two meanings for the term "state".
      - deaddodo 8y ago
        The US isn't the only place to use "states". Austria, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, etc are all based around states. There's an important distinction between "states" and "provinces" that people tend to forget. Provinces are subdivisions of a larger entity, usually a unitary State, and inherit their powers from it. States, on the other hand, grant a central arbiter powers via cession; almost exclusively in the form of a federation or confederation.
chrisseaton 8y ago
The United Kingdom is the usual example of something which is not a nation state. It’s a state. It has several nations within it.

hammock 8y ago

Read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

Raphmedia 8y ago
Point being?
- hammock 8y ago
  That it's not confusing if you clarify your definition of "nation." A nation is simply a group of people with common origin, tradition, and language.
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    Point taken.

captain_perl 8y ago

> Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no Quebec will remain in Canada until the day before their $10+ billion in transfer payments and National Capital Region special treatment is stopped.