Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
SLG

England expects...

Seems that English nationalism could have a figure to compete with Sean Connery! Michael Caine is in the Times on Saturday talking up an English parliament. He says “There’s a possibility that a Scotsman is going to rule over me. A Scotsman who comes from a constituency where my member of parliament, who I elected, has no say whatsoever. And there is an answer, given to me by my friend Sean: give Scotland its independence. Gordon Brown can be the prime minister of Scotland.”

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2434044.html

Via http://www.thecep.org.uk/news/Comments.asp?Entry=1426
Avatar

Oh oh - Labour will be sending "the boys" round to Micheal Caines tonight... Laughing
macnumpty

This is the Self-Determination Society... Wink
azzuri

What an excellent story.

I'm glad a popular Englishman has come out and said something along these lines - will do the CEP no harm whatsoever...
SLG

Well if the CEP have any sense, they'll have written to him to ask for more official support.
Corby Boy

Good on him, I can't wait to vote for my local MP to sit in an English Parliament.
Pip

This is potentially good news.

While there have been quite a few media figures who have spoken openly on England they often turn out to be unionists in disguise. Before you know it they'll be talking about Britain and 'our shared identity/culture/history' etc etc. Worse, they start lecturing everyone else for excessive nationalism and for having the presumption to discuss idependence. It's that sort of thing that gives us a bad name.

Which is why it's so refreshing when someone like Sir Michael expresses such a genuine sentiment.

I think I'll watch Get Carter to celebrate.
Avatar

"I think I'll watch Get Carter to celebrate."

Hehe good plan or whats the name of that film that stared himself and Connery? the one with the Zulu?
Pip

Quote:
Hehe good plan or whats the name of that film that stared himself and Connery? the one with the Zulu?


The Man Who Would Be King had them both in. Zulu was Caine and Stanley Baker. Both excellent films.
Morph

Its great that someone from England has seen the arguement with sence. Instead of making it another 'they come down here steal our parlimentary seats' rant. He has gave the perfect solution let us run ourselves let all the English seat be filled with English men because it will mean we are free.
SLG

Pip wrote:
This is potentially good news.

While there have been quite a few media figures who have spoken openly on England they often turn out to be unionists in disguise. Before you know it they'll be talking about Britain and 'our shared identity/culture/history' etc etc. Worse, they start lecturing everyone else for excessive nationalism and for having the presumption to discuss idependence. It's that sort of thing that gives us a bad name.

Tbh, the CEP does concern me a wee bit on this front. They still talk about using an English parliament to save the Union. I understand that the softer approach needs to be taken in England where there is more of a British identity etc, but I still think that a campaign for English independence would be preferable.
Barny Rubble

Re: England expects...

SLG wrote:
Seems that English nationalism could have a figure to compete with Sean Connery! Michael Caine is in the Times on Saturday talking up an English parliament. He says “There’s a possibility that a Scotsman is going to rule over me. A Scotsman who comes from a constituency where my member of parliament, who I elected, has no say whatsoever. And there is an answer, given to me by my friend Sean: give Scotland its independence. Gordon Brown can be the prime minister of Scotland.”

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2434044.html

Via http://www.thecep.org.uk/news/Comments.asp?Entry=1426


You Scots make me laugh..that camp king Charles Edward Stuart was an Italian..anyway what does Connery know about Scotland he's lived everywhere but the said Scotland!
Economist

SLG wrote:
Pip wrote:
This is potentially good news.

While there have been quite a few media figures who have spoken openly on England they often turn out to be unionists in disguise. Before you know it they'll be talking about Britain and 'our shared identity/culture/history' etc etc. Worse, they start lecturing everyone else for excessive nationalism and for having the presumption to discuss idependence. It's that sort of thing that gives us a bad name.

Tbh, the CEP does concern me a wee bit on this front. They still talk about using an English parliament to save the Union. I understand that the softer approach needs to be taken in England where there is more of a British identity etc, but I still think that a campaign for English independence would be preferable.


Exactly. And its the same with the party, they have the English National Party or whatever they're called, that want "democratic parity" with Scotland which is some kind of code for Scotland and England, getting their independence, which it isn't of course.

Surely a Campaign for English Independence would get further, because let's face it, Westminster is the English Parliament, in all but name. I've not got much sympathy for the West Lothian Question - because it is nonsense, basically (as English MPs, at Westminster vote on devolved Scottish issues all the time)

The fact Brown and co are in positions of power are the exception rather than the rule, when Scotland has 59 MPs and England has, well 10 times that number Shocked . It is easy to see why there was definitely a need for a Scottish Parliament, and much less so for England.
Pip

Quote:
Tbh, the CEP does concern me a wee bit on this front. They still talk about using an English parliament to save the Union. I understand that the softer approach needs to be taken in England where there is more of a British identity etc, but I still think that a campaign for English independence would be preferable.


I want an English Parliament and I want dissolution of the union with Scotland. I see them as part and parcel of the same issue, but I’ll grant you that not all my countrymen and women agree. While there’s strong support for an English Parliament (41% as of the last poll), English ‘Independence’ sounds like a contradiction in terms, which some Scottish nationalists have said right here on OurScotland.

I can see how a movement for independence would be preferable for Scotland, working against the union with push and pull, but we’re not coming from exactly the same position. At the moment the government denies England and the English exist; we are that part of Britain that isn’t Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The CEP are trying to re-establish England’s constitutional status and the national identity of the English. That is the most pressing issue for us, while clearly knocking over the union is more important for Scotland.

But, just so we’re clear, I personally am opposed to the union and would like to see England and Scotland (and Wales and NI) independent.
Pip

Quote:
Exactly. And its the same with the party, they have the English National Party or whatever they're called, that want "democratic parity" with Scotland which is some kind of code for Scotland and England, getting their independence, which it isn't of course.


I’m not a member, but it’s obvious that the English Democrats are the only political party looking out for England’s interests. They’re not racist, not xenophobic and their policies are pretty much common sense. Any pragmatic Scottish nationalist ought to see them as allies.

Quote:
Surely a Campaign for English Independence would get further


As I mentioned above Independence is not the primary issue for England and would be more likely to put people off.

Quote:
I've not got much sympathy for the West Lothian Question - because it is nonsense, basically (as English MPs, at Westminster vote on devolved Scottish issues all the time)


I appreciate that the WLQ, Barnett Formula etc may come across as nit-picking and Scot-bashing but, as well as being important issues in their own right, they’re the headline grabbers that have brought England’s lack of constitutional status to light. There were some English people who had little sympathy for North Sea Oil and the Poll Tax, but these were very important to the Scottish.

Quote:
The fact Brown and co are in positions of power are the exception rather than the rule, when Scotland has 59 MPs and England has, well 10 times that number . It is easy to see why there was definitely a need for a Scottish Parliament, and much less so for England.


Scotland is a proud nation, fully deserving of its parliament and its sovereignty. So’s England. I fail to see the lesser 'need.'
Corby Boy

Agree with your standpoint Pip, soon as more English people see the sense in being constructive about this issue, the better rather than Scottophobia.

As an anglo-Scot two independent states would be a fantastic scenario. I will be able to carry two passports, like many Irish folk do now!
Blackleaf

Quote:
anyway what does Connery know about Scotland he's lived everywhere but the said Scotland!


Who can blame him?
Blackleaf

Corby Boy wrote:

As an anglo-Scot two independent states would be a fantastic scenario. I will be able to carry two passports, like many Irish folk do now!


What will be so good about that? It means having to carry two little books around with you rather than one.

I'm also an Englishman with with Scottish ancestors, but what Englishman isn't? England is like the US - we are a nation amde up of people from all over the world. We are FAR more multicultural and diverse than Scotland is.
Blackleaf

Quote:
It is easy to see why there was definitely a need for a Scottish Parliament, and much less so for England.


Yeah, we're only English, after all. We are less deserving of our own government than the Scots are. I mean, it wouldn't be politically correct, would it? Surely, the English demanding their own parliament is RACIST?!?!
Corby Boy

I'm also an Englishman with with Scottish ancestors, but what Englishman isn't? England is like the US - we are a nation amde up of people from all over the world. We are FAR more multicultural and diverse than Scotland is.

There are many Englishmen, the majority I would say who have no Scottish ancestry. The degree of cultural diversity has nothing to do with the desire for self government in a particular country.

In Scotland, unlike in England, many Asian Scots are supportive of the independence drive where it is not seen as any kind of threat.

Unfortunately, English nationalism by countrast has a discriminatory perception among those who don't feel/or are white anglo-saxon.

Having two passports can be seen as an advantage in some countries e.g. a friend of mine who has dual Irish/British nationality travels to the US on his Irish passport and seems to get less hassle going through immigration than if he travels on his UK passport.

Over time similar examples may become a reality whether it is right or wrong, if Scotland and England did become separate independent states.

It would be my guess the Scottish passport would be less contentious in some countries than the English one due to perceptions folk have of both nationalities.
Economist

Pip wrote:
I’m not a member, but it’s obvious that the English Democrats are the only political party looking out for England’s interests. They’re not racist, not xenophobic and their policies are pretty much common sense. Any pragmatic Scottish nationalist ought to see them as allies.


Are they advocating English independence yes or no? To be honest I can only see such movements and parties in England as providing allied support to Scottish unionists - and English unionists as well. Increasingly I think this will be the case.

Pip wrote:
As I mentioned above Independence is not the primary issue for England and would be more likely to put people off.


I have to disagree with that. I'm sure there is a significant body of opinion who would favour that.

Pip wrote:
I appreciate that the WLQ, Barnett Formula etc may come across as nit-picking and Scot-bashing but, as well as being important issues in their own right, they’re the headline grabbers that have brought England’s lack of constitutional status to light. There were some English people who had little sympathy for North Sea Oil and the Poll Tax, but these were very important to the Scottish.


I don't see them as nit picking, I see them as fundamentally flawed arguments, and am very happy to demonstrate so. The WLQ doesn't exist and the Barnett Formula actually allocates less expenditure to Scotland than we raise in taxation! In essence they are a load of rubbish. This can be contrasted with the Poll Tax and the use and abuse of North Sea Oil.

Pip wrote:
Scotland is a proud nation, fully deserving of its parliament and its sovereignty. So’s England. I fail to see the lesser 'need.'


Oh, if it is a case of "Scotland's got one, we need to get one" then I can't really deny that. But for all the reasons put forward to justify it (WLQ, Barnett Formula etc) are nowhere near as cogent or powerful as the need for Scotland getting a parliament. Therefore independence is the best solution for Scotland and England.
Blackleaf

Quote:
It would be my guess the Scottish passport would be less contentious in some countries than the English one due to perceptions folk have of both nationalities.


Typical Celtic arrogance.

I've just had an Irishman on another forum say "Everyone loves the Irish."

All you ever get from the Scots and Irish is "Everyone loves us, but hates the English."

To be quite truthful, most people around the world don't give a damn about the Scots or the Irish, whereas England is seen as the home of Parliamentary Democracy, the home of the Mother of Parliaments. Foreigners love the English sense of humour - Monty Python, Only Fools and Horses, Blackadder etc, whereas they see the Scots as lacking in humour and quite dour, miserable and pessimistic
Pip

Quote:
Are they advocating English independence yes or no? To be honest I can only see such movements and parties in England as providing allied support to Scottish unionists - and English unionists as well. Increasingly I think this will be the case.


There's a world of difference between advocating independence for England and not opposing moves for independence from Scotland. Whatever the economic realities of the situation there's a pretty much knee-jerk reaction here to Scottish Independence of 'Oh, they can't afford it, their economy's not big enough etc.' Calls for English sovereignty would sound isolationist and un-charitable, at least to someone with that mindset. Calls for an English Parliament on the other hand are about basic equality and the long overdue recognition of England as a nation.

Quote:
I don't see them as nit picking, I see them as fundamentally flawed arguments, and am very happy to demonstrate so. The WLQ doesn't exist and the Barnett Formula actually allocates less expenditure to Scotland than we raise in taxation! In essence they are a load of rubbish. This can be contrasted with the Poll Tax and the use and abuse of North Sea Oil.


The WLQ gives MPs power over those they do not represent. The dangers of this have already been highlighted over votes on health and higher education. This is a very big issue for English people, and we're getting rather sick of being told it doesn't exist. As for Barnett it may well be the case that Scotland suffers financially being in the Union. That doesn't change the Unionist position of us all being equally British, but some British being more equal than others.

Quote:
Therefore independence is the best solution for Scotland and England.


You'll get no argument from me there. I would like nothing better than dissolution of the UK tomorrow. That doesn't mean that an English Parliament is a white elephant, or that the EDP and CEP can't be good friends to Scottish nationalists.
Economist

Pip wrote:
There's a world of difference between advocating independence for England and not opposing moves for independence from Scotland. Whatever the economic realities of the situation there's a pretty much knee-jerk reaction here to Scottish Independence of 'Oh, they can't afford it, their economy's not big enough etc.' Calls for English sovereignty would sound isolationist and un-charitable, at least to someone with that mindset. Calls for an English Parliament on the other hand are about basic equality and the long overdue recognition of England as a nation.


Absolutely not it would be manna from heaven to those of us in Scotland advocating independence here. It would show the remaining unionists in Scotland what the rest of the union thought of them. It would, at a whim, rid Scotland of Trident and nuclear power, it's involvement in unjustified wars and so on. It would also remove any problems or discrepancies arising from the dissolution of the state, as the focus would be on Scotland's due share of UK assets (which it would be due a lot of, on independence) things like a share of UK Government investments, real estate, government gold and currency reserves and all other shared assets and capital.

Pip wrote:
The WLQ gives MPs power over those they do not represent. The dangers of this have already been highlighted over votes on health and higher education. This is a very big issue for English people, and we're getting rather sick of being told it doesn't exist. As for Barnett it may well be the case that Scotland suffers financially being in the Union.


Politicians always have power over those they do not represent. It is a symptom of democracy, rather than the construction of the state. Politicians from certain geographical areas will always have more power over those from other areas, whether it be via the electoral system or the distribution of population. It already occurs in the Scottish Parliament, it has always occurred in Westminster (which has a SE England bias), it would occur in an independent England, as well.

As for the WLQ, the terminology has been abused so frequently, I think most people who argue using it as some kind of indignity don't even know what it means. So it might be beneficial to restate it here. It concerns itself with how Scottish MP's will be able to vote on English issues (of health, education, justice etc) where their Scottish equivalents have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and English MPs won't be able to vote on those devolved Scottish issues. That is totally, utterly and completely incorrect. Take some recent examples;

The Animal Welfare Act 2006:- http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060045.htm

Sections 46-50 extend directly to Scotland and further provisions therein. Animal health and welfare issues - devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Even some provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 extend to Scotland: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60040--r.htm#190

Ditto the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (crime, police and justice devolved to Scotland), the Higher Education Act 2004 (higher education devolved to Scotland), the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (courts and justice devolved to Scotland), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (natural environment and rural communities devolved to Scotland), the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2005 (violent crime and its reduction, devolved to the Scottish Parliament).

I could go on and on and on listing various bits of legislation like this. But all were voted through by Westminster, all contained provisions, sections or clauses that covered devolved Scottish issues that were voted on by English MPs.

Certainly English MPs are unable to vote on the issues that the Scottish Parliament itself is voting and debating, but then neither are Scottish MPs. But then again English MPs are unable to vote on the issues voted and debated on by Manchester City Council. Given that the Scottish Parliament is a subordinate body all Westminster MPs vote on its budget, its electoral system, it composition. They also have a vote on its existence.

Pip wrote:
That doesn't change the Unionist position of us all being equally British, but some British being more equal than others.


Well, the term British has by en large been an English plaything trotted out when it is convenient and trotted back in again just as quickly. It is an abstract concept that I don't really recognise. I can see Scottishness, Welshness, Englishness and all the rest, I can even see a pan European identity. I can't see a British one. I never have.

Pip wrote:
You'll get no argument from me there. I would like nothing better than dissolution of the UK tomorrow. That doesn't mean that an English Parliament is a white elephant, or that the EDP and CEP can't be good friends to Scottish nationalists.


Well I am afraid, I have to disagree here too. An English Parliament would be a very expensive way to remove 59 members of the Westminster Parliament, setting up an identical (almost) structure. My own impression is that the call for an English Parliament is motivated more by a sense of "nationalism" than a sense of democratic injustice. To a certain extent this was wholly true in Scotland as well, just that the democratic injustice in Scotland wasn't built upon such shaky foundations.

I suspect should the Tories get into power next election, the calls for an English Parliament will disappear as rapidly as they arose.
billalba

Blackleaf...I dont think its typical Scots arrogance...I have travelled the world for the last 40 years...and it is usually assumed I'm English...when I tell them Im Scots they are always immediately friendly.. It is more likely your arrogance in believing your own propoganda that you are a peace loving, inclusive, balanced, fair nation....now thats funny.
Corby Boy

Knowing the Scots and English character in general, arrogance is something that would be tagged to an English rather than a Scots trait in the eyes of others.

On my travels, whenever I have spoken to foreigners about my Scottish roots, they immediately warm up towards me, whereas when they think your English, they can be very rude or stand offish.

These are my experiences Blackleaf old boy, somewhat different to your beliefs!
Xcotty

Re: England expects...

Barny Rubble wrote:
anyway what does Connery know about Scotland he's lived everywhere but the said Scotland!


Thats odd, he was born, and brought up in Scotland.
I would think that means he actually lived here.
Barny Rubble

Re: England expects...

Xcotty wrote:
Barny Rubble wrote:
anyway what does Connery know about Scotland he's lived everywhere but the said Scotland!


Thats odd, he was born, and brought up in Scotland.
I would think that means he actually lived here.


Oh well my predictions were right Cotty - come up with some inane lame excuse. Of course the dead beat was born in Scotland! And like the rest he was glad to get out of it! does he live there now? The guy who always wants best for Scotland No! he's like that mincer Stewart - he's never in Scotland!
Xcotty

But Barny, Rod Stewart was not born in Scotland Wink
I thought someone with your wonderfully high intelligence,
would have known that?
Please have a wonderful day
Pip

With all due respect Economist, devolved matters being debated at Westminster, sewell motions, the SP's constitutional subordination and all the rest of it are irrelevent to an English Parliament. When Scottish devolved issues are debated at Westminster they affect the entire UK, and are debated by MPs from the entire UK. When Scottish MPs debate and vote on England-only issues they are assigning funds and making decisions that they are simply not accountable. Who cares about Foundation Hospitals or tution fees when it can't come back to bite them at the next election?

I agree with you that Britishness is an artificial identity, but like it or not that's the one that our government is trying to sell us. Their vision of England is simply that part of Britain that isn't special enough to be mentioned. Hence why, for many English nationalists, the English Parliament is far and away the most important issue.

I appreciate the benefits to Scotland of an English move for independence but it's just not ready yet. There are legions of de facto English nationalists and patriots who believe that 'British' accurately describes them, and until they acknowledge their own Englishness they'll keep voting for unionist Tories and, even worse, UKIP.
Economist

Pip wrote:
With all due respect Economist, devolved matters being debated at Westminster, sewell motions, the SP's constitutional subordination and all the rest of it are irrelevent to an English Parliament. When Scottish devolved issues are debated at Westminster they affect the entire UK, and are debated by MPs from the entire UK. When Scottish MPs debate and vote on England-only issues they are assigning funds and making decisions that they are simply not accountable. Who cares about Foundation Hospitals or tution fees when it can't come back to bite them at the next election.


With the greatest respect, Pip, the point is, that English MPs vote on devolved Scottish issues with regularity and alacrity, and that intrusion of fact upon rhetoric, however inconvenient to the argument, it is doesn't alter the fact that they do. The setting up of a Scottish Parliament has not changed that. Remembering the point of the WLQ is that English members of parliament don't get to do these things. Which, of course, is clear that they do. It matters little whether these issues apply to the whole of the UK - the fact they have different territorial jurisdictions with different powers, shows that they don't.

Bearing in mind the "Tuition fees" debate can be argued on the same principle. About a third to a half of the provisions of that bill extended directly to Scotland.
elidir

Where was england's patron saint born Barney? Did he ever live in england? Was there even an england when he was alive? Check out the ancestry of your own royal family (if royalty is important to you). Now let me see- Edward 1 - Norman French, Henry VII - Welshman; Stuarts - Scottish; George III was he German? some Dutch couple, and the present day anglo- german windsors with a touch of greek hapsburg to boot.

Surely Sean connery doesn't have to live in Scotland to be pro-independance or continue being Scottish - I'll wager he knows more than you do about Scotland. You'r not in a position to decide other peoples identites. Plenty of english people seem to leave england to live in other peoples countries without compromising their identities indeed without integrating into their adoptive communities at all. Is their identity problematic (that is to themselves as opposed to the people they displace)?

Hi Pip, regarding the "British identity" I agree that it is essentially a political fabrication that has had many different pragmatic definitions throughout the history of it and its derivatives' use. However, to many non-english people the term british actually carries a meaning (in a contemporary poltical and social sphere) of "greater england" and therefore its use is actually inclusive of english identity (ie. enables the accommodation of english identity without compromise) but exclusive indeed negatory of other identities particularly those of the Celtic nations which it appropriates for purposes of negation. The terms british and english are habitually conflated, for example, in english works of history without qualification emphasising the essential elision of their actuall common meaning and the obvious prioritising of one national identity over others.

Perhaps that is why nationalists in england are comfortable to use the term british for domestic political consumption as it does not subvert english identity indeed it is a term that actually imposes conditions on the Welsh and Scottish regarding the acceptable and legitimate expression of their own national identities (i.e. you are better for being british than you are as yourselves) and can be seen as a psychological reminder of english hegemony over (and to) the rest of us including the english themselves.
Aventinian

Pip wrote:
I agree with you that Britishness is an artificial identity, but like it or not that's the one that our government is trying to sell us.


All common identities are artificial. The nations within Britain have no more or less an artificial culture than Britain itself.



Quote:
I appreciate the benefits to Scotland of an English move for independence but it's just not ready yet. There are legions of de facto English nationalists and patriots who believe that 'British' accurately describes them, and until they acknowledge their own Englishness they'll keep voting for unionist Tories and, even worse, UKIP.


So yes, they are Nationalists - and yet they are your enemies just because of an arbitrary decision about which 'side' (and I don't think this Scottish/English v. British nationalist thing really is any more than a stupid game).
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
I appreciate the benefits to Scotland of an English move for independence but it's just not ready yet. There are legions of de facto English nationalists and patriots who believe that 'British' accurately describes them, and until they acknowledge their own Englishness they'll keep voting for unionist Tories and, even worse, UKIP.

So yes, they are Nationalists - and yet they are your enemies just because of an arbitrary decision about which 'side' (and I don't think this Scottish/English v. British nationalist thing really is any more than a stupid game).

It's not arbitrary, Scotland and England are established nations that engender a common sense of nationality within them. British identity is a construct of our political masters for political gain and Britain retains conflict between the 'sub-nationalities' within it. If everyone in Britain felt British, you might have a point, but they don't. Very few have any substantial British identity.
Pip

Quote:
English MPs vote on devolved Scottish issues with regularity and alacrity


If matters that CAN be debated at the SP, if they so wish, are kicked back to Westminster then all UK MPs vote on the matter to affect their own constituents in the entire UK. If the matter is debated at the Scottish Parliament, then at Westminster all UK MPs vote on it to affect England alone.

The WLQ, Barnett and the absence of any chamber to represent just England, as a distinct nation within the UK, add up to an anti-English bias at the constitutional level. Our votes are worth less, our MPs are worth less, to the NHS our lives are worth less.

I appreciate that the Scottish Nationalist position is that, even with Barnett Scotland is still being robbed blind. But the fact that the UK government does not admit this and yet still spends significantly more per head in Scotland (and Wales and NI) is a massive insult to us.

We have horrific social divisions in England, class, race religion. We're screaming out for a coherent national identity to rally around, and then we get the cold left-overs of 'Britishness' thrown back in our faces.

Believe me, we need many things, but leading them all is the need for an English Parliament.
Pip

Hi Elidir.

Quote:
inclusive of english identity (ie. enables the accommodation of english identity without compromise) but exclusive indeed negatory of other identities particularly those of the Celtic nations which it appropriates for purposes of negation


I accept your point, but the problem is, we're getting pretty heavily negated ourselves. 'England' and 'English' have become almost forgotten words. Everything's got to 'Britain' in case somebody gets offended. England's only role within the modern concept of Britain seems to be as a dumping ground for Imperial guilt and class prejudice.

Quote:
Perhaps that is why nationalists in england are comfortable to use the term british for domestic political consumption as it does not subvert english identity


I'll grant you that Britishness offers less overt challenges to Englishness than it does to other identities. But Britishness is offered as an alternative to Englishness, an improved, more inclusive version. It's the assumption that the English had to upgrade to become British, rather than be a component of Britain, that's done us so much damage as a society and as a culture.
Pip

Quote:
they are Nationalists - and yet they are your enemies


I don't see them as my enemies. If you talk with them they've never been to Scotland or Wales. They regard the Celtic languages as some kind of personal insult and the SNP and Plaid as uppity whingers, in the same box as Respect or the Greens. Yet the books, art, music that they regard as especially their's are English. Their frame of reference is to England, their historical perspective is centered on England.

I've never seen the differences between England and Scotland as arbitrary. The first time I stepped out onto an Edinburgh street the difference hit me like a shock wave. The history of the two countries is entirely different, as is the approach to things like the empire. The legal systems aren't just different, they're mutually incomprehensible. The relationships each Scot has with the three different languages is alien to the English. Calvinism has had a major impact in Scotland, but very little in England. The education systems are different, the attitudes of the major banks. The geography, the sense of place in the world, the attitude towards Europe; none of these are held in common.

These aren't just a list of differences, they're things that shape a person's outlook, their sense of self. Some people may not require a sense of national identity, but I would venture to say that a majority do, especially at a time of crisis. Sharing a history, a language and a common experience create a unifying identity. Sharing an island does not.
Economist

Pip wrote:
If matters that CAN be debated at the SP, if they so wish, are kicked back to Westminster then all UK MPs vote on the matter to affect their own constituents in the entire UK. If the matter is debated at the Scottish Parliament, then at Westminster all UK MPs vote on it to affect England alone.


Erm, no they don't. As I pointed out before these devolved issues debated at Westminster affect Scotland and Scotland only - they don't affect the constituents that they represent, who are in England (Scotland's justice system doesn't actually have I remit, I'm led to believe).

Pip wrote:
The WLQ, Barnett and the absence of any chamber to represent just England, as a distinct nation within the UK, add up to an anti-English bias at the constitutional level. Our votes are worth less, our MPs are worth less, to the NHS our lives are worth less.


I would say that the absence of an all-English chamber is missing compared to the rest of the UK. The WLQ argument is easily dispensed with. The Barnett Formula very badly misunderstood and is usually used as shorthand for "verygeneroussubsidyfromthebenevolentenglishtaxpayer", when in actual fact the budget allocated to the Scottish Executive to spend, is far less than what we raise in revenue (after all we do pay for all the defence installations up here, and will be given a share of the "UK" Olympics debt to contend with given it'll have zero effect on us, yet we have to pay for it!

Would you admit, therefore, the institutions government and lack of Scottish Parliament before devolution were pro-English and very anti-Scottish? By your own logic, I'd say that were true.

Pip wrote:
I appreciate that the Scottish Nationalist position is that, even with Barnett Scotland is still being robbed blind. But the fact that the UK government does not admit this and yet still spends significantly more per head in Scotland (and Wales and NI) is a massive insult to us.


When we look at the revenue side of things, it tells a bit of a different story.

Pip wrote:
We have horrific social divisions in England, class, race religion. We're screaming out for a coherent national identity to rally around, and then we get the cold left-overs of 'Britishness' thrown back in our faces.

Believe me, we need many things, but leading them all is the need for an English Parliament.


No. You need English independence Laughing

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads