Sorry Jon, that's not fair. I did not 'very crudely caricature' Vron. I quoted her, quite correctly. She wrote that my version of civic nationalism was 'complicit with racism' and that it was the 'duty' of those who considered themselves anti-racist to 'reject' it.

She couldn't have been clearer, and neither could I. Civic English nationalism is designed at least in part specifically to combat racism, so I won't accept this. 'What it means to have an anti-racist politics', meanwhile, is not defined by you or Vron Ware or anyone else, but is entirely personal. At the heart of it is an opposition to racism. Beyond that, you may complicate it all you like, but that's your affair.

I never claimed Vron had called me a racist, incidentally, so I'm not sure why you drew out that last paragraph.

Arthur Aughey’s comments are not entirely disinterested but rather reflected the view of the unionist establishment on the level of threat posed by English nationalism. However, the poverty of the response of Clark and others shows that the establishment has lost the patrician confidence it had before the principle of the UK as a unitary state was breached by the creation of competing national legislatures. Paradoxically it was Tony Blair’s insistence on referenda that gave a formal stamp to what was always going to be the case in regard to Scotland: that the Scottish Parliament would become entrenched whether the constitution was formally federal or not.

As there is no going back on devolution there is no reason to believe the English question will be significantly eased by any of the measures proposed so far. In fact most are likely to merely draw more attention to the need for further and more profound changes. So a dynamic is at play and this may be the thing that forces English society address the issues outlined by britologywatch

“For the English, choosing to be English as opposed to British really means entering a new phase of existence as a nation, and abandoning the assumed glories and glamour of Britishness - perhaps for good. It's actually an existential choice: do we want to be English or do we want to be British? Politically, that choice is increasingly being made for us by the other nations of the UK. But until we embrace Englishness psychologically and existentially, we'll cling on to Britishness even amid the growing disintegration of Britain as an objective political reality.”

I think this is the crux of the issue, but pressures are likely to push this process along.

Saying that England should follow the lengthy Scots path (there was no health apartheid then!) strikes me as rather an odd concept.

Chris, the Scottish path certainly was lengthy, but are English nationalists currently on a path that will deliver progress more quickly? At the moment, the CEP notwithstanding, I'm not sure they are, and Arthur Aughey's description of English nationalism as a 'mood not a movement' is a telling one.

Chris Abbot

You're forgetting the Parliament of Northern Ireland which sat between 1921 and 1972.

Uniformity has never been a feature of the United Kingdom. Our different arrangements derive either from the 1707 Treaty of Union or that political mobilisation mentioned in the original post. You seem to imply that constitutionality was all very well for the Welsh and the Scots but that the English should be allowed to circumvent it.

As for the postcode lottery on medical treatment, it predates devolution and in a way extends beyond it. What is the more pertinent question we should be asking ourselves? Why does provision in Scotland differ from the rest of the UK in certain respects or why does its provision mirror more closely that enjoyed by our European neighbours, the USA, Australia etc.?

Sorry, Tom, but the original Union documents stated that there would be one parliament forevermore. Now we have a situation of various levels of elitism - differing forms of devolution - from a Scots Parliament to Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies, but no national body at all for England.

I think the situation is a little more complex - and might I say twisted - than you seem to grasp.

We now have previously unimaginable inequalities running rampant in the so-called "UK". Saying that England should follow the lengthy Scots path (there was no health apartheid then!) strikes me as rather an odd concept. And worrying. So people should continue to suffer in England for want of medications available on the NHS in Scotland, should they?

Surely, the Government should never have allowed asymmetric devolution in the first place? And the sooner all nations are equal the better?

Its not race i hate, but the racist in us all.

It's an instinct that needs self-control.

He also continues to very crudely caricature what Vron Ware said about him, claiming that she accused him of being "complicit with racism". While she did use those words in the passage her point was about what it means to have an anti-racist politics. She also said this about Paul:

If I thought he was being racist I would say so, but it is a serious charge and I don't for a minute think he is, and I have read his work carefully.

It's funny because I was discussing this with Paul a couple of weeks ago and I mentioned to him that I had been called a race-traitor and wigga by people on the right, and a racist and BNP sympathiser by people on the left.

Fast-forward a week and Paul gets called a race-traitor.  I sent him a congratulatory email to welcome him to the prestigious club. 

Scottish nationalism has had different focuses from the Treaty of Union to the present.

First of all, there was Jacobism in the 18th century, the Chartists in the early 19th century, the Home Rule campaigners of the 19th and early 20th century, leading to the formation of the SNP in 1934.

Nearly 300 years to get a parliament back!

Lets hope the English nationalists have a shorter route.

“The last decade has seen a transformation of Scotland, as a direct result of the creation of a Scottish parliament.”

I haven’t been to Scotland for a few years so perhaps I shouldn’t comment but I’m always rather sceptical when I hear English writers talk of post-devolution transformations. What has been transformed? Scotland itself or English perceptions of it?

There seems to be a tendency to attribute to devolution such developments as a separate political culture or establishment. These are not the results of devolution but the prerequisites.

What really has shaken up the political culture in the devolved administrations is proportional representation.

The situation is, however, somewhat different; so that drawing parallels with, and learning lessons from, the Scottish experience is fraught with difficulties. In some respects, the new Scottish self-awareness and national focus results from having defined and reaffirmed an identity that is independent and differentiated from that of 'Britain' seen essentially as a trope for England. So it's easier for the Scots to be proud Scots because they have a more powerful neighbour to react against.

For the English, by contrast, defining an English identity distinct from the British identity and state is a much more agonising and internal process in every sense: nationally, politically and psychologically. This is because of the familiar confusion / conflation of the English and British identities. For the English, choosing to be English as opposed to British really means entering a new phase of existence as a nation, and abandoning the assumed glories and glamour of Britishness - perhaps for good. It's actually an existential choice: do we want to be English or do we want to be British? Politically, that choice is increasingly being made for us by the other nations of the UK. But until we embrace Englishness psychologically and existentially, we'll cling on to Britishness even amid the growing disintegration of Britain as an objective political reality.