Introduction by Mark Perryman , editor of Breaking up Britain : Four Nations after a Union
Breaking up Britain is a book-length conversation between individuals, parties and social movements who with or without borders nevertheless rarely talk to one another. Each contributor presents their own national context for the collection's four themes; post-devolution national identity, models of civic nationalism, formations of exclusion and states of independence. Yet each account, whether based on an English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish perspective seeks to be universal too. In essence this is what a politics of the progressive nation would look like. A civic nationalist politics now exists in Scotland and Wales prepared to push the devolution settlement to it limits, its breaking point. In Northern Ireland Irish Republicanism is now the majority party representing the nationalist community. In England a growing body of opinion and ideas demands that England must find a part to play in this process too. Ten years ago Scots and Welsh voters went to the polls to elect a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Northern Irish votes have elected their Assembly too. Breaking Up Britain seeks to chart the past, present and future of this course . A direction towards states of independence in which we will surely witness a reformation of four nations after a Union that has run out of time.
Our Kingdom today features edited extracts from contributions to Breaking up Britain from Arthur Aughey, Mark Perryman and Charlotte Williams. Together with critical responses by Gerry Hassan and Paul Kingsnorth:
Breaking Up Britain is published by Lawrence & Wishart, available from lw books
A FREE download of Mark Perryman's opening chapter ‘A Jigsaw State' in Breaking Up Britain is available here
Comments
Four nations? Whose head is in the sands? - what about Cornwall, Isle of Man, and each of the Channel Islands?
"And inner-city England is irrevocably black, and in large
parts of our urban nation increasingly Muslim too."
Disappointing and frustrating to hear people repeat the same old lazy half-truths. England is still overwhelmingly white, Anglo-Saxon and non-Muslim. Even Brixton has more white people than Afro-Carribeans.
Go away and read the last census results if you don't believe me.
This blindness of this commentariat, who insist on imposing their "multi-cultural" ideology even where the facts are against them just adds to the alienation of many people outside London and drives them into the arms of the BNP.
Rather a strange response. If you read my extracted chapter in full I give the statistics, England is 10% black and Asian, Scotland and Wales around 2%, Northern Ireland less than 1%. This is a significant differential but the difference is much bigger in terms of inner city England compared to inner city Scotland and Wales. 45% of all immigrants live in London, the next biggest percentage is the West Midlands 13%. The demographics suggest race will be a much more salient feature in defining England's post-devolution national identity. It will be a contest between those who define their Englishness against immigration, and for many Europe too. And those who don't seeking an inclusive Englishness for all. Mark Peryman
Indeed kevrenor how can such a book be taken serriously if it does not include discussion of the various Crown protectorates as well as the Duchy of Cornwall.
Need I remind people of the petition of 50,000 signatures calling for a Cornish Assembly.
The Cornish Democrat
The book is about Breaking up Britain. A process begun ten years ago when the Scots and Welsh electorates voted for a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.However strong the case for Cornish self-government it is pretty hard to deny this self-evident fact.The book suggest than in the next ten years the process will be accelerated, and I am sure Cornish Nationalists will play a full and active part. Quite why that should preclude England also playing its part though is beyond me. Mark
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Orkanians?
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
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,
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
Post new comment