What you say repetedly is things like the nationstate helped create fascism, the only ones today supporting the welfarestate are right wing extremists (a favorite of the liberals), and that Hitler was democraticly elected (wrong, Hitler and Hugenberg and the parties on the centre-right were democraticly elected and crashed democracy the Nazis only gained 37 %).

But you´re a perfect exampel of a modern German, buying into the Christian democratic consens of that country. It´s a pity what with Germanys great tradition of organized labour and the social democratic tradition coming out of Germany.

But we´ve gone a long way from Glasgow by-elections here. And the question of the future of the UK and Scotland.

Ytterhogdal wrote:

What you say repetedly is things like the nationstate helped create fascism, the only ones today supporting the welfarestate are right wing extremists (a favorite of the liberals), and that Hitler was democraticly elected (wrong, Hitler and Hugenberg and the parties on the centre-right were democraticly elected and crashed democracy the Nazis only gained 37 %). But you´re a perfect exampel of a modern German, buying into the Christian democratic consens of that country. It´s a pity what with Germanys great tradition of organized labour and the social democratic tradition coming out of Germany. But we´ve gone a long way from Glasgow by-elections here. And the question of the future of the UK and Scotland.

Sorry to interrupt, but the way you twist the meaning of what I've written into what you seem to look for, is hard to believe. I never said that the "only ones supporting the wellfare-state are right wing extremists" nor did that repeatedly, on the contrary, I explicitly wrote that I don't assume a proximity between the two!
Lastly, the NSDAP got 37% in the 1932 Reichstagswahlen and in 1933 was again the strongest party. As common in a parliamentary democracy that got them in the position to lead a coalition of parties to government duty with Hitler as the Reichskanzler (which is all I said earlier... that Hitler got elected into office).
I still don't like your tone and the assumptions you make about me, but if you think that's necessary, go for it.

Now youre wrong again. The NSDAP was indeed the strongest party in the elections on November 6 1932. However they wern´t included in the Government until January 30 1933 (and this was not due to any constitutional regulation prescribing that the new Government didn´t take office until a later date). The elections of March 5 1933 isn´t worth mentining because the nazis had by then taken control of state power and thus this election isnt considred democratic.
Your conclution that the biggest party alwas get to name the primeminister is wrong. Especily this dosen´t apply to Weimargermany and the nazi Seiziure of Power. The centre right had a coice. They could have gone into discusions with the social democrats or continued the decree style politics, it didn´t however. To the etaernal shame of the German centre-right. That this group founded the federal republic 16 years later and has ruled it for most of the time has made theese facts to be if not concealed in Germany then at least not given the prominence it should have merited. Again an unfashionable view of German history and politics.
The reasons for this is complecated and interesting. The unvillingness of the SPD to discuss this after 1945/49 is to me one of the most puzzeling aspects of German political life. I belevie that a reason is the nature of progresive politics: the will to look forward and "get on with it" (building a new Germany. Then w´hen the issue resurfaced in the late 60ies it was difficult to discuss it from a centre-left perspective because the issue was overtaken by the extremae left. It is hard to discuss the Hanns-Martin Schleyers if other of his critics actually kill him. Here the Baader-Maynhof gang and there contemporaties have much to answer for.

I am sorry that I have again taken your time from the issue of Gllasgow by-elections and british politics.

honestly, you gotta learn to read posts...
rest per pm to end it here....

Do I?

Why can´t one dicuss theese things? The role of the nation in the welfarestate, the future solotions of the welfare tate and of society as a whole? And although this thread is the wrong place: the developments of German politics and the implications on it by history?

Personally I find this much moore interesting than a the doctrins of "the bad nation". A rather simplified version of communist internationalism.

sod it here is my 2 cents worth!

I see the SNP as a means to an end, as part of the UK there is no hope of a socialist government being elected in Scotland due to the political influence of the English SE. In an independant Scotland a feel a Socialist government(not talking SSP here as they are a shambles and couldnae run a bath) is possible. I also feel Scotland would benefit economicaly, for example look at Norway acountry with similar, natural resources, tourist income etc. where the standard of living is among the highest in the world.