I am worried about Gordon Brown.  Also worried that my comments may be published, due to poor behaviour on this site. Anyway Gordon Brown and lack of use of the world "England". I always refer to this country as "England" and it will always be known as "England" to me. I docked in a ferry in Wales recently, and a fellow Englishman said to me. "Ah we are in England at last"...I said, no my friend, not just yet; Going to London? Yes he said....h'mm you will see that "Welcome to England" sign for another 100miles or so. Then you will be in England.  Read that sign with a passion for England. Learn, again, know all you can about England, it is your country, and you will need to fight once again to keep it.  The EU is the problem and the Lisbon Treaty....economic, and political sharing.....but the final stage is the sharing of the NAVY, THE ROYAL NAVY, and the defence forces, and after 200 and more of fighting France and Germany, it is incredible now we are just going to be giving them the ships. For once I am greatefull to the Irish who overturned the situation with a "No" vote. And Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy tried to take England into the treaty with no election in England. He is getting away with too much. This is all perceived, by political writers, so that either Gordon Brown or Nicholas Sarkozy can be President of the New Federal Europe. Look at Gordon Brown at the moment talking in World Terms. Is he off the beam. But it is a distraction currently. I am not in favour of that Lisbon Treaty.  The Royal Navy played such an Integral Part in the Social History and Prosperity in England's success. I will haunt Gordon Brown and all his family, in the afterworld, if he ever so much as dares give England away to those Europeans. They have really been a lot of trouble and bother now for several hundreds of years. Take my advice my friend and countrymen, refuse to talk metric weights and measures. Go back to the Imperial system, and think of the Queen and you will be on the right path to saving England once again.

God Save the Queen and England.

Brown, like most Scottish unionist politicians, has little appreciation for how his actions over Scotland are perceived by the English public at large. He works on the assumption that, in securing Scotland for the union, he will win the admiration of the establishment. Of course Brown’s position is illogical. But truth and logic are seen as expendable in the ‘noble cause’ of keeping the union going. As Scots we’re used to this kind of deception by our politicians who have bent the truth and logic to secure the union for as long as anyone can remember.

All that may be true, I have no reason to doubt it, but it was before my time.

Brown endorsed the idea that the Scottish and Welsh national identities were distinct from "the rest of Britain" and therefore demanded distinctive political national expression.  

What concerns me now is applying the logic of the Kilbrandon Commission - we think therefore we are - to England.  If Brown can apply that logic to Scotland and Wales, even if only for pragmatic unionist reasons, then stands in an illogical place if he can't recognise England's equal right.

Bizarrely his argument now seems to be that England doesn't require distinct English institutions because it is not sufficiently different from "the rest of Britain" (even though "the rest of Britain" require, and now have, their own national institutions to separate them from England).

Gareth, I think this is where people tend to go wrong in reading Brown. In the period around the Kilbrandon Commission those unionists who were more progressive in Scotland in both the Conservative and Labour party were in favour of devolution. I remember people like Malcolm Rifkind coming along to our tutorials with Hendry Drucker. Others such as Brown and the Tory MP, Alec Buchanan Smith were all in favour of reforming the British constitution to meet Scottish aspirations. Brown’s acceptance of the Kilbrandon definition of nationality was for purely practical reasons, in that it cut through niggling over definitions.

The attitude of this group of politicians reflected a lack of sentimentality towards the British constitution that reflects a Scottish tradition that sees Britain as a vehicle for achieving things in the wider world but has little attachment to the English traditions that underlie it. This is linked to a Presbyterian millenarianism that sees the British Empire as a vehicle for spreading protestant Christianity. This view includes a demonising of Scotland’s past before the reformation and sees Scottish nationalism as a narrow selfishness.

The main advantage that has propped up this ideology over the centuries is access to the big stage, both commercially and politically. It was therefore perfectly consistent for them to want to push devolution, because it tweaked the machinery of the state to keep the show on the road in the face of growing disenchantment amongst their fellow Scots. In doing so it aimed to safeguard that access to the big stage of Westminster.

Alex, I've read that book.  Brown has already flip-flopped on the in-and-out principle, he's on the record as opposed to English Votes.

The more interesting thing about The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution is that Brown endorses the Kilbrandon Commission's opinion that Scotland is a nation because the people think of Scotland as a nation, and no other definition is required.

It's on the basis of national identity - distinctiveness from the rest of Britain - that Scotland won/was offered devolution  And it's on those grounds that Brown supported it.  Dougthedug may say that Brown is not a Scottish nationalist, and I can appreciate where he's coming from, but at least Brown recognises Scotland.

Brown couches his "Britishness" in odd impartial and conditional terms - listing the admirable qualities as if he is arguing perhaps in the face of doubters that, on balance, Britain is more admirable than not or, alternately, that these are the best mitigating factors he can think of. Love of country, I sugggest, is like love of one's parents - natural and unconditional for similar reasons: they gave one one's being - it is partiality. A list of good qualities in contrast is a way of appraising something alien, it is without affection. It may be a legitimate way of describing his particular Britishness but he clearly is not one to define "Britishness". I very much doubt if he would define his Scottishness in a similar bloodless fashion of qualities. The profound history of danger, of sacrifice, of world signficance shared by England and Scotland (Empire and two world wars) has the English uttlerly accepting of Prime Ministers of Scottish birth. A proportion of that post war Scottish generation who have only known peace and prosperity and have made no sacrifice believe themselves to be victims of England. Jimmy Porter said that there were no great causes any more. That's why people now have to invent them. These are not heroic times, they are the times of elective-victimhood and posturing pseudo-heroes.

Fred, his nightmare is an independent Scotland. I'm afraid his wrecking of the economy is down to simple incompetence rather than some fiendish plot. Though looking at the wreckage, if it was a fiendish plot it would be a very good one. I'm afraid it's the truth that he is a fervent British Nationalist. The devolution that Labour created is not based on the nations of the UK, it was based on the idea that Scotland, Wales and NI are provinces of the UK and the idea of further provincial devolution in England rather than a English Parliament was a natural consequence of that. Brown simply doesn't recognise the nations of the UK as valid, despite his signing of the Claim of Right in Scotland. I would dispute that. Labour beat the Conservatives in England in the 2005 GE in the number of seats gained.

You're right that Labour now view Devolution as a threat but it was intended as a safety valve for Scottish Nationalism and as a means to secure the Union not as a means to give Scots a step up towards independence.

Gareth perhaps you should ask whether the Prime Minister still hold the views he expressed in The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution [1980] Published by Books on Demand
ISBN 0608131040, 9780608131047, which he wrote with my old politics professor Henry M Drucker.

Written after Brown had been the chairman of the Scottish Labour Party's devolution committee, which had failed to deliver on the devolution referendum, he advocates that any future revision of devolution "could embody some form of the 'in-and-out' principle. Under such a principle, the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating English or Welsh domestic matters."

Britologywatch,  I think you're correct.  Brown's vision can never be implemented as policy because his vision is British and he can only implement social policy in England.

Scotland and Wales are fortunate that they have some protection against Brown's statecraft, but perhaps that was always the intent.

Use a Fredom of Information Request to find out which bunch of feckless civil servants is answering your petition on behalf of our annointed leader.  You'll get a quicker response that way.

Good point Hendre.  I noted at the time that Scotland was celebrating 60 years of the Scottish NHS.

If Brown couldn't talk about English issues as British, as if he had ownership of it, it would leave him with precious little to bore us with.

Doug , I have never thought Brown is a fervent British nationalist. Waving the falg is for him simply a desperate convenience.
The route by which he now champions "Britishness"
- not a word much used in the great days of the British- is a peculiar one. Remember, he was prime mover in setting up the Scottish parliament and ending the unitary United Kingdom. It actually appears that he imagined in some way that doing this would not endanger the Union or the parliamentary underpinning of the Union parliament.

Further, and what I have always found incredible but which is true , is that Labour generally were so intoxicated with idea of limited devolution that they completely ignored the implications for the Labour party itself ie that Labour is fundamentally a Scottish/Welsh party which only ever took root in England because of the Union . Without the Union English politics would probably be a Liberal/Conservative struggle.

Labour has belatedly realised it is profoundly threatened by devolution both, unexpectedly, in Scotland and Wales and latterly in England.

If Labour were flexible they could seize the idea of an English parliament for their own and prolong the life of their party. The are not though. Locked into their very warped appreciation of history and their generally anti English mindset they are far more likely to continue down their rigid little road than change and survive.

One reason why New Labour has had such difficulties in this area is illustrated in the recent post by Clare Coatman – i.e. the complete undermining of Cabinet government. New Labour has been completely dominated by the Blair/Brown duopoly - both vying to present policy in all areas.

Brown went to the trouble of appointing an English MP as Health Secretary but then just couldn’t resist making substantive policy announcements (for England only and to the surprise of the health practitioners concerned) in a speech to mark 60 years of the NHS. Why on earth didn’t he allow Alan Johnson to make these announcements himself in a speech or on the floor of the house, where it would have been natural for Johnson to specify that these were England-only policies? Sheer New Labour control freakery.

In order to receive an answer to this question I thought I'd gee them along with a FOI request.

And it turns out that the Prime Minister's Office consulted the Ministry of Justice to come up with the Government's response.

Useful tools FOIs.

He cannot say our country for two reasons Britain is not a country it is a state consisting of 3 countries England the biggest and the one he is desperate to destroy. Scotland the one he is busy pouring English money into and Wales the one he uses as a front to try to hide his rabid racist bias.
The other reason he cannot say our country for England is because he is a Scot and it is not his country. He is a foreigner hell bent on racist policies to see his auld enemy wrecked before he goes back to an independent Scotland. Let us hope that a future English administration will have him extradited and put to the end traditionally reserved for foreign agents behind enemy lines.

In the light of this, it will be interesting to see what kind of response we get to my 'England Nation' petition, which does assert that if England is acknowledged to be a nation, so should Scotland and Wales be (and that if nation status is refused to England, it should also be denied to Scotland and Wales). And I also wonder how long I and my fellow petitioners will be kept waiting till the boffins can come up with some equally obfuscatory reply to that petition.

I note that in your petition, Gareth, you provide examples where Brown uses 'the / this country', and that the government's reply links 'the country' to 'the UK'. As a UK-parliament MP and as head of the UK government, Brown can therefore articulate a vision for 'the country' (= the UK); but in reality, he can be directly responsible for implementing that vision only in that part of the UK some of us still like to call England. 

Can we conclude, then, that when Brown talks of what he wants to do for 'the country', these are only mission or vision statements, and do not refer to specific policies that will differ to varying degrees from that vision in the various constituent parts of the UK - the variations in his own constituency being greater even than those in England? That might account in some way for how Brown's delivery does not (indeed, cannot) live up to the vision - or, indeed, how he cannot have a practical and credible vision for 'the country' until he actually makes explicit which country he's talking about.

"Why won't Gordon Brown refer to England when it is England of which he speaks?"

 Because the man is an arrogant control freak and a nasty, spitefull anti-English bigot. I doubt that any of the other countries on these islands would tolerate such a situation but we as a nation have become so politically spineless that we have not only allowed this man to take control of our country, we have allowed him and his fellow travellers to remain in power and continue to treat us all with contempt.

 Until enough of us have the guts to stand up to him and his cronies, the longer this enemy of England will get away with wrecking our country. We used to be a nation that wasn't shy in letting our feelings known (the Tolpuddle martyrs, the Levellers, the miners strike, the Jarrow crusade and the poll tax riots to name a few) but nowadays people shrug their shoulders and meekly accept things. We should all be grateful to people like Gareth who challenge the status quo and are prepared to take action, I just wish there were more of us.

It's not difficult to work out.
If Gordon actually specified what applied where in his pronouncements it would become obvious to most Scots that the bulk of his pronouncements were for England only and it would lessen his political footprint in Scotland and raise the footprint of the SNP who are currently in Government in Holyrood.

However the main reason is that to recognise England as a nation would mean the recognition of Scotland, Wales and NI as well and the fiction of a unitary British state with a, "celtic fringe" (© Vron Ware), of devolved provinces would lose legitimacy.

Legitimising England de-legitimises Britain by turning it from a "nation" into a political union and if nothing else, Gordon Brown is a ferverent British Nationalist.

The Labour party either still don't get devolution or they think the voters in Scotland are too stupid to know what's run by which government. Waking Hereward has a good hard look at the, "Action Plan of Linday Roy", the successful Labour candidate in Glenrothes. It consists mostly of areas which are under the control of Holyrood not Westminster MP's.