Carryfast:
It really is tiring to keep on having to defend Nationalism…
It is a tough gig for sure. 
…against the fraudulent accusations in the Socialists trying to twist Nationalism as meaning expansionist takeover of others when history proves that is the MO of Socialists allied/combined with Federalism.
What I think we’ve established is that you’re not even really a nationalist. You’re an inveterate separatist, along whatever gerrymandered fracture lines happen to suit your agenda or argument at any one moment, and apparently oblivious to the fact that your opponents gain just as much additional veto power as you do every time a political fracture occurs. It may well mean that they can impose what they wanted to impose on you anyway, especially if the majority of other local interests are hostile to the agenda of your locality, but what is permanently lost is the higher-level structures that frequently enable real cooperation and economic integration.
In your case of the miners, if each constituency had had a long-standing veto over national matters, all that would have happened was that mineshafts would never have been sunk in Yorkshire, and power stations and steelworks would never have been built there, because taxpayers around the country (never mind private investors) would not have tolerated sinking billions in capital into large fixed works, only to be beholden to a complex national matrix of local interests, local vetoes, and varying local laws that could change at any moment (and without any regard to the greater good or the national body of opinion).
That’s why most major canals, turnpike roads, and later railways, used to need a specific act of Parliament to enable them, because it involved expropriating landowners, eliminating local powers to tax trade, and better transport links always threatened local vested interests in a variety of ways, and it was only with the force of the (national) state that such projects could be organised and achieved and guaranteed to be operable as going concerns free of local interference and obstruction.
As for national expansionism, it’s simply a historical fact that every nation or kingship in Europe has done it throughout their history - they have expanded, conquered, and colonised the larger part of the Earth. That is, there is no history in Europe of this mutual national respect which you advocate - not at any time, whether fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago.
I’ve said before that I’m aware of only one example in modern history that resembles what you advocate, which is Japan under the Tokugawa regime, and they abandoned the policy after 250 years because it left them economically backward, and they then became an expansionary nation (like the European nations already were) as their economy grew and they needed access to raw materials and export markets that couldn’t be provided for within their own borders.