“…In order to make our point clearer, we summarize some of the knowledge produced within the academic sub-discipline of nationalist studies, with no intention of presenting an exhaustive review of the huge volume of social scientific literature on the topic, which, as Rogers Brubaker pointed out "has become unsurveyably vast" (Brubaker, 2009: 22); the purpose will rather be to introduce some essential, well-established, arguments that lead us to uphold the aforementioned critique to the dual identity standpoint. Let us start by stating the obvious, i.e., that nations are social constructions in constant discursive reconstruction (Wodak et al, 2009), which involve cultural practices (McCrone et al, 1995), the media (Eder et al, 2002), rites (Abélès, 1990), ceremonies (Balandier, 1994), performances (Vaczi, 2016), fictions and myths (Balibar, 2005), branding image (Dinnie, 2008), and many other everyday subconscious mechanisms (Billig, 1995: 93-127) built around some particular pre-existing diacritics (Barth, 1969) which are articulated around an on-going national project (Armstrong, 1982). It is well-known that language typically plays a central role as a diacritic for sub-state national projects in Spain -see Shabad and Gunther (1982) for the Catalan and Basque cases and Beswick (2007) or Beramendi (2007), for analysis on Galicia-but there is of course a difference between national languages and pre-national forms of talk.…”