A nation without a state is established through the ethnic distinction of a particular group that establishes ties that overlap those established with the state.
Among the ethnic groups that form a modern nation-state, there are cases where cultural ties are so strong that ethnic distinctions between groups are striking. These groups end up seeing in themselves traits that differentiate them from the other peoples that surround them, in such a way that they can be characterized as distinct nations formed within States that support a completely different national identity. This means that, although identity exists for these ethnic groups, there is no fully independent political body capable of governing the ethnic community in question.
The concept of nation has been debated for a long time and, even today, it is a very diffuse notion. In general terms, the term nation is understood as “ a group of people united by natural and therefore eternal bonds (…) and that, because of these bonds, becomes the necessary basis for the organization of power in the form of the State national. ”*, Or even as a“ representation of a ‘collective person’, of an ‘organism’ living its own life, different from the life of the individuals that compose it. The breadth of these “legal persons” would coincide with that of groups that share certain characteristics, such as language, customs, religion, territory, etc …”. Although disagreements about these definitions are numerous, they are the most widely used interpretations when the term nation is used.
In this sense, it is possible to identify ethnic groups that are inserted in the context of a nation-state, but that, in view of their ethnic distinctions, position themselves quite differently from other groups governed by the same state. Some of the clearest examples are Wales and Scotland, which are recognized in Britain as minimally independent entities for having cultural and historical aspects that differ from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Don’t stop now … There’s more after the publicity;)
In this case, the two nations have their own institutions, but with limited political powers, which does not make them completely independent, but gives greater freedom for the particularities of the local population, different in their cultural construction, to be contemplated. Scotland, for example, has its own educational system that is distinct from English and Welsh and, more recently, more specifically in 2014, went through a referendum to decide whether to stay as part of the United Kingdom. Although the majority voted against independence (more than 2 million votes against 1.6 million in favor), the tight result shows that the feeling of distinction between Scots and English is quite strong.
However, in most cases, completely different ethnic nations are not recognized by the state in which they are located. This is the case with ethnic conflicts such as those in Tibet , a territory controlled by the Chinese state, which uses force to avoid recognizing the Tibetan minority. Another example is the conflicts that unfold in the Middle East in which Palestiniansthey suffer from the curtailment of rights and strong oppression of the larger nation-state of Israel. In these two cases, the main point is that the feeling of belonging to a group with the same cultural, linguistic and religious traits stands out as the basis of the identity of a people, which is unified and approximates the realities of the subjects belonging to that section of such so that, even outside a formal institutional context, they remain united.
