open Democracy News Analysis - Britishness - Comments

The Cornish Democrat on "Breaking-Up Britain "

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:16:21 +0100

Joe,

I do welcome this book and the debate it promotes but what I don't like is the lack of intellectual honesty from progressive English nationalists who simply ignore the Cornish question, that they are fully aware of, for a number of different and equally unjustifiable reasons.

Equally Joe just because this book pushes forward the debate on Scottish independence does not mean it should be beyond criticism.

Finally I have major doubts about the benefit to the Cornish home-rule movement of finding itself in an independent England without having first secured at least the start of a devolutionary process.

The Cornish Democrat

The Cornish Democrat on "Breaking-Up Britain "

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:09:29 +0100

Is this person mad? He seems terribly hooked-up on blood lines and race. As for my family I don't see what it has to do with this debate really, but none of them are from Devonshire as far as I know.

The Cornish Democrat

Mike Small on "Breaking-Up Britain "

Mike Small — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:53:49 +0100

Orkanians?

joe.middleton on "Breaking-Up Britain "

joe.middleton — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:53:49 +0100

From what I've read the book is interesting and worth reading on its own merits. Rather than complaining 'where's Cornwall' those who are interested in achieving independence or devolution for Cornwall should welcome this book as a contribution towards the break up of the British state.

Cornwall's lack of profile is due to the British state's actions and the end of that state is likely at this point to begin in either Wales or Scotland.

That is reality but Cornwall's case has not been forgotten or ignored by the other Celtic countries.

joe.middleton on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

joe.middleton — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:29:33 +0100

I think what is coming across from this article is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up.

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not an betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied then the funds to do so!

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there) and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

The Hammer on "Breaking-Up Britain "

The Hammer — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:53:56 +0100

The people of Cornwall cannot afford to pay for their own assembly, 60% of people in county Cornwall are from neighbouring fellow English counties. 0.01% speak a reconstruction of Welsh and Breton for a third language hobby, which some sociopaths try to pass off as "ethnicity". Not a country, not a nation. Take The Cornish Democrat for example, his real name is Philip Hosking and his family is from Devon. The English taxpayers should not have to pay a single penny for the self-affirmed victimdom of identity confused Englishmen like him. I would rather people like Philip emmigrate than working class people from other counties pay money for his vanity. Many of the people who signed his "petition" on the internet were not even from Cornwall.

Though something is missing, the Nordic nations of Shetland and Orkney, to these people the term "Scotland" means the foreigners on the mainland (such as Raymond Bell, a Saxon Communist from Edinburgh, acting as an agent provocateur across the internet to negate the fact that he lives in a slum) and assert an identity closer to the Nordic countries, especially Norway (the country it was previously part of and was supposed to be returned to). We must also put under the microscope the Highland and Western Isles Question, these are very different culturally to the Saxon, non-Celtic Lowlands and have very different economic needs. Free Shetlandlers, Free Orkanians. Free the Highlanders too. No to Holyrood, no to Westminster.

The Hammer on "Breaking-Up Britain "

The Hammer — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:44:37 +0100

The people of Cornwall cannot afford to pay for their own assembly, 60% of people in county Cornwall are from neighbouring fellow English counties. 0.01% speak a fake reconstruction of Welsh and Breton for a hobby, which some sociopaths try to pass off as a real language. Not a country, not a nation. Take The Cornish Democrat for example, his real name is Philip Hosking and his family is from Devon. The English taxpayers should not have to pay a single penny for the self-affirmed victimdom of identity confused Englishmen like him.

Though something is missing, the Nordic nations of Shetland and Orkney, to these people the term "Scotland" means the foreigners on the mainland and assert an identity closer to the Nordic countries, especially Norway. We must also put under the microscope the Highland and Western Isles Question, these are very different culturally to the Saxon Lowlands and have very different economic needs. Free Shetland, Free Orkney. Its their oil. No to Holyrood, no to Westminster.

Not logged in on "Back to Front and Popular England"

Not logged in — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:41:33 +0100

As a Welsh nationalist and internationalist, Mark Perryman's thoughts really give me hope for the future of England. People carp on about losing their beloved British state, but how on earth can post-devolution Britishness be defined, when 85% of its volume (England) has no clear definition of itself?
England has in my mind been the most influential nation on the planet in the last 500 years, yet the English are the last to recognise it-or assume that English=British.
Mark, keep up the good work and I look forward to buying your new book.

TruroDave on "Breaking-Up Britain "

TruroDave — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:06:18 +0100

Would have liked to see Cornwall there, Lib Dems only got elected in 2005 after running on a Cornish Assembly promise, shame they didn't keep it

Ray Bell on "Breaking-Up Britain "

Ray Bell — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:42:43 +0100

I'm glad someone's doing this, but I would repeat "where's Cornwall?" Some Cornish nationalists have a very interesting analysis, particularly where the British monarchy is concerned, which feeds in nicely to republican debate.

The Northern Irish flag on the cover is a controversial one for various reasons as well (so much so the British Government actually stopped using it), but that's another matter.

naldo on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

naldo — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:49:05 +0100

Gerry, you're at it again:

"It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism."

What is very conservative and very British about Scottish nationalism?

The people i know who support Scotish independence do so out of a desire to break away from the conservative two party state that the UK has become and they genuinely want to change the whole of the UK, for the better not just Scotland.

I don't know what you mean by a British form of nationalism (and maybe you'll enlighten me) but it sounds far more sinister than the cause of Scottish independence.

The Cornish Democrat on "Breaking-Up Britain "

The Cornish Democrat — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:45:28 +0100

Mark,

I understand that the book's focus is post devolution but why in that case is England talked about and not Cornwall? To date neither stateless nation has received any form of devolution and relatively speaking it's Cornwall that has the stronger nationalist movement.

Surely a petition of 50,000 signatures calling for a Cornish assembly following the first round of devolution is worthy of mention in such a book. Did you even know about the petition before reading about it here? Have you investigated the Cornish home-rule movement? If not why not?

Since devolution a campaign for an English parliament has developed, whilst a Cornish home-rule movement has existed from the 50s with political expressions of a Cornish nationalist nature going way back before this.

Of course England should be playing its part (have I suggested otherwise?), but why talk about one home-rule movement yet to receive any form of satisfaction, the English one, whilst totally ignoring the older and relatively more advanced Cornish movement?

The Cornish Democrat

Mark Perryman on "Breaking-Up Britain "

Mark Perryman — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:06:27 +0100

Thanks Ray.

Imagined Naton didn;t have a specifically football angle, I've written extensively on that subject elsewhere tho' I certainly referred to it in the introduction.

Breaking up Britain has nothing on sport at all, I felt there was a need to move on from the subject.

As for politics. Both collections are self-consciously aimed at a leftwing readership some of whom are interested in the subject thaks to the efforts of Billy Bragg and others but too many remain only willing to discuss it at arms-length. However the big change about Breaking up Britain is the key contribution from leading figures from the nationalist parties and those with a broad sympathy for nationalist politics, voices seldom heard outside of their own countries.

It makes for a really pioneering collection.

Mark P

Ray Bell on "Breaking-Up Britain "

Ray Bell — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:10:28 +0100

Can I second Kevrenor on this?

Cornwall should get more of a look in, and to a lesser extent the three nearby crown dependencies.

I enjoyed your book "Imagined Nation", but I did feel there were two main faults in it -

1) I appreciate that sport is an important component of English identity, but in Imagined Nation, only football was considered. This is a shame, because in certain regions, English people of all classes are involved in other sports, particularly rugby league in parts of Northern England, rugby union in the West Country (and more other places than it is given credit for), cricket in Yorkshire and elsewhere. (I would argue that polo is the only sport played in England which has remained the province of a narrow section of the population.) All of these sports have relevance to the English debate.

2) The commentators all came from the same part of the political
spectrum. I consider myself left wing, but it is worth pointing out
that when I showed I.N. to certain English folk, some of them wouldn't
read it, purely because all the contributors were on the left. Lib Dems and Tories with something worthwhile to say should be brought in on this debate.

"Imagined Nation" never dealt with the Cornish question properly either -
Cornwall gets two mentions neither more than a sentence or two. I felt
the analysis of the Northern English question could have been deeper
too. One of England's chief problems IMHO is its centre of gravity in
the Home Counties which marginalises the rest of the country in matters
as diverse as government, culture, and even accent - witness the spread
of the so called Estuary Accent. The inferiorisation of most English regions by television - especially comedy etc, is a phenomenon worth studying in its own right.

Gerry Hassan1 on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Gerry Hassan1 — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:30:58 +0100

Thank you Mark for your comments and responding acknowledging the relevance of some of them.

However, you have misunderstood significantly what I wrote in one respect in my recent post. At no point or place do I talk about the ‘party line’ of one-quarter of the book in my post. What I am talking about is the sense of an ‘official story’ or more accurately the perceived wisdom of the ‘counter official’ perspective.

As I said this comes across very powerfully in the Scottish chapters which are defined by this account of the story of ‘official Scotland’ and the ‘counter-stories’ we know so well. This is a much deeper issue than ‘party’, but about an inability to go beyond conventional wisdoms – either sometimes of the mainstream, or of the supposed alternatives.

Thus, we have in the Scottish contributions two chapters seeing neo-liberalism everywhere and two which don’t take into account the battering of Scots social democracy by the onslaught of the last thirty years.

It is also true that none of these contributions really get to grips with the inter-relationship of Scottish nationalism to social democracy – although this is the explicit aim of one chapter, which just does not do it – and also – to neo-liberalism. It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism.