Peter Davidson

'English Nationalists gleefully exploit this information vacuum to drive a wedge between the UK’s historical constituent elements. '

I assume you mean since 1707 ignoring the 1000 years prior to that.

'For me, “English” cultural values remain strong. The fact that perceived dilution of “Englishness” arouses such strong emotions is sufficient evidence to illustrate that they are valued and will be defended.'

I wish I could share your confidence. They seem to me to be under very strong and politically motivated attack. Further, seeing as you seem to reject the notion of any English homogeneity (see below) why put 'English' in inverted commas rather than simply say 'regional' cultural values. Perhaps because it would appear stupid.

'Do not conflate the English as some kind of homgeneous socio-political entity and people.'

I think we are in terms of thinking of ourselves as one nation with regional differences. All we wish is for the first part to be recognised. There are far greater regional differences in Italy which emerged as a nation only relatively recently from a group of city states and yet they still have political recognition as Italy do they not?

'Why add England as an extra, additional tier of governance within such a proposed arrangement - it’s either one or the other?'

Why must it always be England that is left out, that is extra to requirements? It seems to me that it is the UK that is surplus to requirements in a federal Europe. England is the only nation state to be left out of your vision of a more devolved Europe.

'...a slow but sure road to inward looking isolationism'

Why is this necessarily the outcome when it is only what you believe it to be?

Peter you argue very eloquently and the points you make about regional devolution are convincing but once again you leave a political notion of England out of the equation. You seem to fear it in the same way that people fear the emergence of a 'Greater Germany' or 'Serbia'. Is this the case? Or are you only concerned with equity for the differing regions of England?

Marquand in this week's New Statesman:

The democratic republican tradition is not the property of any single party. For most of the past century it had more influence on the Liberals than on the Labour Party, but it straddled both. There were strong echoes of it in the first New Left of the late 1950s and in the student revolt of the following decade. Tony Benn laid an unconvincing claim to its mantle a decade later, and in some of his moods, that eternal gadfly, Dick Crossman, did the same. The Scottish Claim of Right that paved the way for Scottish devolution was suffused with it, and there are traces of it both in the Scottish National Party and in Plaid Cymru.

Hamish

Agree 100% with your first reservation - in fact it is probably the main obstacle to real progress. It was this centralising "we know best" mentality that effectively torpedoed the first attempt to devolve power to English Regions outside London during 2003-4 by limiting its scope so severely.

I cannot agree with your second observation - I actually made specific reference to the process involved in arriving at conclusions, during which many options could be on the table. I am definitely not saying that the two options I have outlined WILL be the proposed solutions. What I am saying is that my logic tells me that they will be the most likely options left to deliberate upon (democratically), if the open and transparent dialogue alluded to is ever allowed to develop. I have severe doubts about that possibility.

Finally I have to 100% reject your final comment. What we must absolutely NOT end up with is the single option you describe because that way lies an English Parliament (of that I am 100% sure) by default and a slow but sure road to inward looking isolationism. That prospect is a nightmare!

Peter - just an additional comment - I think it would help all of us if the British media, wherever it is based, would try and inform the British public on ongoing constitutional issues. Perhaps that subject is worthy of another thread?

Peter - the problem I find with your proposal is the assumption that there has to be change and that that change has to be one of only two, mutually exclusive options. How can people who support the status quo or want a different kind of change from what you want to offer - say for example an English Grand Committee - have a voice? What of those who want an English Parliament AND devolution to the regions? I'm not unsympathetic to your point but I think your way of addressing the issue will muddy the waters and that will allow certain people to procastrinate for their own ends instead of getting on and resolving the issue. Have a straightforward referendum on an English Parliament - yes/no answer - majority choice wins. (I think there are too many vested interests who don't want that approach). Once the basic question of an English Parliament is resolved one of the next steps could be to address the distribution of power between the English Parliament and the English regions.

"perhaps you have misunderstood the power of ignorance and the magnitude of the information vacuum in which the mendacious English Parliament campaign message thrives! "

I haven't lived in England for quite a while so my perception is second hand, so to speak. I get the impression that there is a significant desire for an English Parliament that is not "mendacious" or "based on ignorance" even if there are such elements as you suggest. In the same vein, I'm aware of pro English Parliament groups and campaigns but I'm not aware of any English regional movements (unless you count Cornwall).

Hamish

I will try to convey my reasoning concerning this complex issue.

There are many possible solutions to the "English Question" to give it a simple label.

If you look at my postings about this topic, you will see that I favour the written British Constitutional route.

I believe that all of the UK's current territorial elements will retain an intrinsically intimate relationship for the foreseeable future - maybe 50 years. With that in mind it is obvious that some form of equitable and sustainable accommodation between those elements must be forthcoming. I believe (and I think I would be supported by the overwhelming majority) that some form of constitutional change is required - the status quo is not a viable option for the longer term.

I beleive that the best way to achieve this goal is via the vehicle provided by a written British Constitution. In order to arrive at that destination, there must be certain pre-existing conditions in place:

1. A genuine commitment on the part of political elites to accept the need for change and to agree to adoption of democratically legitimised reforms - in other words our leaders must accept up front that change is required and that they will implement reforms demanded via democratic means, i.e. a referendum. This pre-requisite is essential if the UK public is to be seriously engaged. Without it, the public will treat the conversation/consultation process with utter contempt.

2. Nothing should be ruled in or out before the consultation process begins. In the context of English Regional Devolution, this must include the capacity to reshape the English Regional Map. This is because the outline of the current official English Regions has a profoundly negative influence upon overall enthusiasm towards English Regional Devolution strategies. We only need to cite the Cornish penisula as an example but I am sure that the same problem exists elsewhere.

3. The competencies "up for grabs" to transfer to any nascent English Regions should be significant. I don't think the public want expensive talking shops (see the North East referendum result as ample demonstration of such sentiment). What is required are robust, meaningful institutions with real relevance to people. That means transferring substantial elements of policy currently controlled at the centre (Whitehall). Examples might include:

Healthcare

Education

Law & Order

Housing

Intra-Regional Transport

Intra-Regional Economic Regeneration

Culture & Tourism

This list is not exhaustive but I am sure it gives you an idea.

By control I mean not only power to make policy - i.e. primary legislation (so we are talking Regional Parliaments, not Assemblies) but also the transfer of commensurate revenue raising powers required to fund said competencies.

In other words I am advocating transfer of REAL power. Even Scotland with its own parliament is nowhere near to the scenario I have outlined.

All of the above to be enshrined in a federal constitutional settlement; so no going back just because UK based political élites subsequently change their minds?

This process would facilitate real discussion and gauging of public sentiment with regard to the many other options you describe. I believe that the vast majority of said options are neither credible nor viable in the longer term and I also believe that that view is reflected widely within public opinion. Most of the public may not share my view on the ultimate solution to the "English Question" but they do want real and substantial change - of that I am utterly convinced.

I think that the written British constitution route described above will finally settle on two possible constitutional solutions for those areas of the UK outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

1. An all-England Parliament assuming competency for policy portfolios currently controlled in Whitehall but specific to England - i.e. at least all of those I listed above

2. An array of English Regional Parliaments taking the form I described above.

The referendum would then offer the entire English Electorate simultaneously a two option either or choice. The option of both is also a non-starter and that would become obvious as the consultation process progressed. Why add England as an extra, additional tier of governance within such a proposed arrangement - it's either one or the other?

Obviously the referendum results would have to be collated both Nationally and Regionally according to the boundaries (revised or otherwise) specified within the two proposed Constitutional settlements.

In this way Regional and National sentiment could be recorded, affording individual Regions the opportunity to opt-out of any All-England Parliament arrangement.

I believe that in such circumstances, where distinctly different options were on the table for the English Electorate to choose between, they would overwhelmingly opt for closer more immediate tiers of effective governance, rather than an inherently centralised all-England political institution.

In this manner an array of democratically legitimised sub-national (with the UK playing the role of Nation) entities would arise. A sustainable partnership between true equals. The Federal UK Parliament would assume a relatively small role, managing a limited range of competencies, such as Foreign Affairs, Defence and Immigration.

As for the mendacious nature of much English Parliament agitation; well that's another story?

Hamish

Having read your other post, I think you misunderstand my reasoning. The two option referendum I advocate would automatically assume a demand for change of some sort from the outset. Retaining the current status quo is not an option for the long-term.

The question posed would be mutually exclusive. It's vote for one of two options, not both (or spoil your ballot paper). This would deliver the decisive outcome you desire and simultaneously provide clear democratic legitimacy for pursuit of a constitutional strategy in accordance with the English electorate's wishes.

Hamish

No I don't underestimate the English at all - perhaps you have misunderstood the power of ignorance and the magnitude of the information vacuum in which the mendacious English Parliament campaign message thrives!

Offer the English electorate what amounts to a single choice option - either embrace (some kind of) constitutional change for England or retain the status quo and the former will be outcome; with the devolution genie unleashed, it's a no-brainer!

However, offer them two (mutually exclusive) distinct options and you will force the electorate to deliberate upon the longer-term implications for each course of action; in such circumstances, common sense will prevail.

Peter - I admire the scale of your ambition but I have two (at least) reservations:

Firstly, your proposals require a long-term rational and open analysis of the constitutional futures of the various parts of the UK by the British political establishment and a desire by that same establishmment to find out what the people(s) of the UK actually want. Unfortunately, that's not how the British political establishment tends to work! They tend to think short-term (long-term analysis when it happens tends to be ignored or only partially implemented), and make ad-hoc changes without treating the whole UK as an interacting system. They don't really want to know what 'we' want, not least because they know what's best for us and we're not smart enough in any case (I get a trace of that attitude from your own posts - just a little!). When we get consulted by referenda it's for us to agree to what they have decided we want/need and are prepared to concede - not to find out what we actually want.

Secondly, I think you are being overly prescriptive (there's that trace again!). You seem to have decided that two options must be pursued and there seems no opening in what you say for alternatives.

Overall, and bearing in mind the subject of this thread, I think you're tying the English Parliament question in a Gordian Knot that is best cut by a straightforward, single question, yes/no referendum on whether the English want a parliament.

@Hamish

I have to reject your analysis. It is not a case of tying anything up in knots. Surely you understand that the framing of any referendum question and the options available has a seminal impact upon the outcome?

Ask a single question phrased in the manner you describe and you will receive an overwhelmingly positive reaction.

Allow the English Electorate a meaningful choice between two mutually exclusive options and you are quite likely to receive a virtually opposite response from the electorate.

People, in general, want effective governance located closer to them because this delivers a greater sense of immediacy and responsiveness. If they don't have that option on the ballot paper, they can't vote for it!

Your suggestion will provide a self-fulfilling prophecy and cheat the people of the English peripheries by installing an inherently centralised tier of English governance to replace the current UK incumbent.

Peter - sorry, I disagree. The question used in the referendum on devolution in Scotland was "Should there be a Scottish Parliament?" Why the same question can't be put forward in England substituting "English" for "Scottish." There is no guarantee you would get an "overwhelming reaction" in favour just because you ask the question. The vote in Scotland reflected all the opinion polls, the vote in Wales only just managed a majority in favour. How else are you going to know what the English want unless you ask them, and in a straightforward way?

Peter - to add a bit more to my comment - we have seen the danger in Scotland in 1979 of not having a clear result in a referendum. In 1979 a majority voted in favour of devolution but not enough to pass the 40% of the entire electorate which technically meant the proposal fell. The problem with unclear referendums is that people exploit them for their own ends. That is one reason why I think a referendum on an English Parliament should be straightforward and unequivocal - it makes it hard for people to ignore or misrepresent the result.

I understand your concern about regional interests but I think you have to tackle the 'national question' first. Regional interests in an English Parliament can be addressed in a number of ways including the electoral system, the parliament's structure and the legislative process. There is also the option of devolution from English Parliament to English region.

England is one country (leaving aside the issue of Cornwall) with one legal system, one educational system, etc. The only alternatives when addressing the WLQ are an English Parliament or a number of regional assemblies developing theor own legal systems, education systems, etc.

An excellent point, Derek.

In Scotland, many people consider our ethnic minorities Scots, and they self-identify as so. There is even a Singh tartan.

Hamish,

Like Derek who posted here and in another related thread, you assume too much. Do not conflate the English as some kind of homgeneous socio-political entity and people.

In the context of any proposed referendum, that is vitally important to understand. Changing the name over the doorway from United Kingdom to England, which is precisely what will happen if the vote is put in the way you describe, will change nothing and utterly fail to address complex issues of social and economic disparity prevelant within England.

Scotland is (in terms of population size) much smaller relative to England. This has a profound impact upon its ability to delivery equitable solutions across its entire territory.

As for you bland statement about "no guarantee" this demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of the current political complexion, south of the Scottish border. Populism is on the increase, driven by ignorance and envy. English Nationalists gleefully exploit this information vacuum to drive a wedge between the UK's historical constituent elements.

I repeat that any vote about England's constitutional evolution must include clearly defined options. The status quo no longer represents a credible long-term strategy so change is a foregone conclusion. The question is; what direction should that change take?

I was invited to go on the 100% English programme. I asked if there would be any black people on the programme and the answer was no, only white.

I declined. It's time that we dispensed with attempts to define English in that sort of way. English must be inclusive.

Peter - I think you underestimate the English! You seem to think they can be hustled into an English Parliament against their true will by the devious tactic of asking a straight forward question!

Thank you Hamish, you speak sense, its not rocket science!

Peter - no need to tie the issue up in knots - single question referendum - "Do you want an English Parliament?" - straight yes/no answer - answer with the most votes wins. Not too difficult.

A comment on David Marquand's first post, parroted by others, suggested he'd orchestrated the 'Yes' campaign in the NE, which he has had to deny; and now he's accused of supporting the Iraq war. But a cursory bit of googling throws up articles in which he's saying the exact opposite, some from this very website as well as this from an article on Cif:

"The charge against Blair is not so much that he acted illegally and immorally (though he did) as that he hitched his wagon to a US administration of swivel-eyed fanatics, consumed by a messianic fever and utterly ignorant of the realities of one of the most complex regions in the world. It was worse than a crime. It was a blunder for which we shall pay even more dearly in future than we have already."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_marquand/2006/12/post_833.html

There is another strand of thought germane to this discussion; an alternative perspective presented by the declining influence of the Nation-State as an institution of effective governance.

The notion of an "independent" state entity crops up repeatedly in OK dialogue, often specifically in relation to England. This begs a vital question; what, precisely, is meant (or perceived as such by the writer involved) by "independent" in the context of the debate at hand?

I would argue that we (by "we" I mean the collective human race) have now reached (or are very close to reaching) a universal circumstance in which no Nation-State can claim to be totally independent in the normal sense of the word.

In the space of a remarkably short (in relative terms) period of human history, perhaps beginning with the economic meltdown and consequent global recession precipitated by the Wall Street crash of 1929, the world has transformed from an array of relatively diverse and detached political units into an ever more interconnected matrix of interdependent geo-political entities. Even the largest Nation-States in the modern era can no longer shelter from the storm of globalisation. The disturbing factor within this trend (depending on your viewpoint) is the irrevocable direction of its travel - we all know which way the world is going and it's only one way!

Recently an article, relevant to this concept, appeared on the CiF forum, submitted by Ulrich Beck, Professor of sociology at Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilian University and the London School of Economics,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2240782,00.html

The theme of Professor Beck's article is simple but has profound implications for the way in which we conceive the role of institutional governance.

The professor asserts that, within the European arena at least, our traditional ideas about the role played by Nation-States are changing, incrementally and irrevocably.

Perhaps the inception and subsequent evolution of European governance, currently manifested in the guise of the European Union, might be seen as anticipating the onset of globalisation; simply a wider process and structure designed to protect and enhance the interests of European citizens.

What does all this mean for the idea of England as an independent state?

Does it completely discredit the notion of independence per se or does it, as Professor Beck argues, require a reconceptulisation of the Nation-State and its perceived role?

For me the repercussions flowing from the globalising forces outlined in the article find a counterbalancing force in the form of increased public demand for a greater say in other areas of governance. Just as pragmatic publics begin to accept that traditional Nation-State entities such as France, Germany and the UK can no longer shape outcomes in fields such as Global Climate Change, Mass Migration or Worldwide Financial Markets, so they demand the emergence of a closer more immediate state apparatus displaying competency in other areas of government policy with more impact over their day to day lives; Education, Healthcare, Law&Order are the usual candidates in this respect.

For me, this is why the concept of England represents a retrograde constitutional pathway. Put simply, European Nation-States have become too small for some things, yet too big for others.

In the 21st Century, the inhabitants of England need a more flexible and imaginative constitutional solution, which cannot possibly emerge from outcome that perpetuates the unitary model established by the United Kingdom.

David

I have to question your assumption regarding the singularity of the English and a homogeneous entity. You emphasise culture and history but seem to place little importance upon other factors.

I have gone on record as saying that I believe the best route to a sustainable and equitable constitutional settlement for all constituent elements of the UK is through the vehicle of a written British Constitution.

The meaningful "Conversation" between all sections of British society leading to the establishment of a written constitution will be the means by which we (the British people) establish precisely how we wish to be governed.

That process should not have certain pre-conditions, for example the assumption of England as a single indivisible entity. Similarly it should have the potential to reshape the current English Regional Map because I believe this contributes to public antipathy toward the concept of English Regional devolution.

Similarly we should be able to consider the nature of the relationship between the UK's constituent elements, how we elect our representatives (the voting system) and the status and identity of our head of state.

This process will not (and should not) be quick but it should have some kind of time limit (maybe two years) set for completion and finally a referendum.

If at that plebiscite an real choice between an all England Parliament (with its location known in advance) and an array of meaningful semi-autonomous, financially self-sustaining sub-national entities was on offer, I would be happy to abide by the decision of the English electorate.

Ivor - I realise you don't just get 25% DNA from one Grandparent, it was a simplification to prove a point. The point being that DNA testing is really meaningless, 25% of Carol Thatcher's ancestors are not from the Middle East, she might have some genes that overlap. Garry Bushell's response to his inclusion on the programme, linked to from my blog as above, pointed out there is a 28% error on the Northern European DNA sample.

This programme as Gareth recognises confused nationalism with racism/ethnocentrism as you seem to.

"I loathe the idea of so called pure ethnicity, and am worried by the drum beat of nationalism."

The two do not have to be and should not be linked.

Seeing pure ethnicity as better is wrong, seeing it as worse is wrong. Ethnic purity is nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, although self identification is.

In my mind not only should a democracy be representing a majority opinion, those who vote should consent to the outcome of the vote. For me a nation is best defined as those who feel enough common identity to consent to vote together on their system of government, and by that definition the nation state is the best form of democracy. This makes me a nationalist and ethnicity is not mentioned once. (and neither is homogeneity before Peter Davidson repeats that tired line)

The Scots felt the English were imposing Thatcherism on them, and are better off in their own nation as they would accept a vote amongst Scots. I believe the English retain enough of their identity to constitute a nation, and their own parliament would provide a fair and democratic way to decide their own politics.

For me democracy is a moral vision in itself, not dependent on what those democratically empowered would support. Anything else is a distraction.

Here's my personal copy of Tom Paine's The Rights of Man alongside a copy of the Putney Debates and a CEP booklet.

They do not make strange bedfellows.

The CEP booklet bears the legend Liberty shall stand upon the cliffes of Albion - William Blake

I live in Lewes and regularly drink in the White Hart pub where Tom Paine expounded his radical politics prior to writing The Rights of Man. If David Marquand went down the White Hart and asked the locals which organisation - the CEP or the Labour Party - Tom Paine would have supported in 2008, I can assure him the majority would say the CEP.

Hilarious to be called a barbarous reactionary by a supporter of the war-mongering Blair. The day that I need a lecture in morals from New Labour....

1) David, my father had an Irish mother but was brought up in England. My mother is Welsh. I was brought up in England. I consider myself English not a mongrel. My sister is mixed-race. I consider her English not a mongrel. Do you think of yourself as English, really, but just feel too embarrassed to admit it? Or do you in fact think of yourself as British in the first instance?

Calling yourself a 'mongrel and proud of it' is a way to duck these issues of national identity and could be seen as conceding a point to the racists: as if only ethnic purity constituted untainted nationality. Or is it your view that to place any importance in the whole issue of national identity is inherently reactionary and potentially racist? But that's why honesty about what nationality - not ethnicity - you think of yourself as being is important, as a matter of debate if not in your own personal opinion. If you think of yourself as English, then being English and the future of England must be a matter of importance to you. If you don't think of yourself as English, or if you feel contempt for the whole notion of Englishness or of any other national identity, then your own dismissal of the lack of any moral vision behind English nationalism carries less weight: it's a reflection of your dismissal of the notion of (English) national identity per se, spoken potentially from the position of someone who'd rather have a supra-national or a-national Britain and / or Federal Europe.

2) Do you think all those examples you give of the 'true glory of English history' [so there is such a thing as English history, and it had its glorious moments?] would dismiss supporters of a democratic English nation as barbarous reactionaries? I don't think so. As the 'secret person' says in these comments, and as I myself wrote in a comment on your original post, the cause of English nationalism in the present is based on the right of English people to free self-determination, a concept which of course owes much to the thinkers and democrats you revere. That's a human right and a self-sufficient moral good. It doesn't need any further justification. Of course, if you don't actually believe that there is such a thing as the English people or nation that might wish to have a democracy of their own, then you won't logically accept this moral vision. But there is an English nation, and it deserves the right to choose whether it wishes to govern itself. You should question the extent to which your denial of this as a moral cause, and placing of yourself on the side of the 'sheep' of English history rather than the 'goats', is just a thin disguise for contempt for the 'common' English people - and for yourself as English: barbarous mongrel rabble that we are.

3) It's one of the characteristics of what I term Britology (the myth making around Britain and Britishness) that Britain is identified 'intrinsically' with a set of universal liberal-progressive ideals (liberty, democracy, progress, tolerance, etc.), which you clearly see as having been advocated and defended most authentically by the thinkers you mention. Does this make you a supporter of the 'British project' and a supporter of the efforts to consolidate some sort of British identity and nation (that has never really existed, unless you assimilate this with the Celts as opposed to the blood-thirsty, mongrel Anglo-Saxons . . . - barbarous rabble) around 'British values'? But the irony is that most of what is upheld as 'glorious' (you use the word 'glory') in the British tradition, character and value system originated in England, as indeed those thinkers and writers you admire are all English. So the best of British, as well as much of the worst, is English. Sounds like a moral justification for a free English nation to me!

David, aka Britology Watch

"And celtic nationalists burn English flags and cottages…."

But that is a moral vision in their eyes. A sign of how tolerant and fit to lecture others on prejudice they are.

All the moral vision we need at the moment is that of saving our country from extinction. This is the fate intended by the Labour government and on which vast sums of English taxpayers' money have been and are being spent.

It is not 'me too-ism' to notice that in a Union of four nations the three Unionist parties steadfastly refuse to contemplate any referendum to ask the people of England whether they want their own domestic parliament. Their refusal to hold one only serves to confirm that their 'England project' is to abolish England. They will not even concede that someone needs to speak for England. There was however a bit of 'you too-ism' in the referendum in Wales - unlike the Scots the Welsh were not clamouring for their own assembly (never having had one previously) but the government decided that Wales must be included whether there was any real demand or not. Why?

An English Parliament, like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, would provide a focus for the nation - and hopefully we might then make a start on reclaiming English liberties on which there has been massive state encroachment..

However, that being said, the English nationalist ‘project’ does often seems to boil down to europhobia, immigration controls, celtophobia and Swiss style ‘neutrality’ (or is it hypocrisy).

*YAWN*

And celtic nationalists burn English flags and cottages....

Phil, well said:- 'English nationalism and conservatism! Never going to be a pretty mix was it? '

England has always partly defined itself through it's war-faring abilities, and it's colonies.

Blair and his supine M.P.s have attempted to hold onto this tired inflated nonsense by sucking up to the next big kid on the block.... the U.S.

Hence the tragic, and illegal war in Iraq.

The sooner we tell our politicians to stop strutting around on the world stage, making speeches that are meaningless if not backed by the U.S. the sooner we come to terms with our real place in the world.

England is being defined,and being destroyed from within and Mr. Marquand calls it "me -tooism"!! Our country is in more danger now than it has ever been in it whole existence,and Mr. Marquand says "we have no moral vision"Milton supported an English Parliament,and Blake hated injustice,so we don't really need you campaigning alongside us,in fact I will be cross if you do!

A barbarous reactionary

England is a nation - a nation that pre-dates the Act of Union by hundreds of years. It has a basic and fundamental right to self-government at least as equal to that of any other country. The idea that the English cannot justify self-government without first articulating a "moral vision" is just a load of intellectualised bullsh*t. It amounts to saying that you cannot do something unless you first have an "ideal". Right action is a response to the needs of a situation - not the result of idealism. The situation in this case is the democratic deficit resulting from Labour's half-baked "devolution" - itself a perfect example of the kind of "idealism" that fools like you think is a pre-requisite for action.

I agree ethnicity has no bearing on the right to live in or discuss a democracy. It shouldn't even be an issue and has no place in the discussion on an English Parliament.

I deplore the use of the word Mongrel even more, though. According to your description of a mongrel, I am not one, thankfully. It's a bit of an animalistic label, which I wish you wouldn't use and I would be very offended if I had parents or even a single ancestor from Wales or Scotland and you called me or my children, "Mongrels" because of them.

As for "Reactionaries," it is the first time I have heard people calling for fairness and equality descibed as such. Perhaps it is in the same dictionary as the one that carries the word Mongrel, to describe people like yourself? If so, I hope that is one book that never sees the light of day.

Anybody who supported Blair and his wars should think twice about calling people 'barbarous reactionaries'.

However, that being said, the English nationalist 'project' does often seems to boil down to europhobia, immigration controls, celtophobia and Swiss style 'neutrality' (or is it hypocrisy).

English nationalism and conservatism! Never going to be a pretty mix was it?

The moral vision we have is of the right to democratic self-determination.

"If and when the campaigners for an English Parliament show that they belong to this tradition, I shall campaign alongside them. Until they do I’m afraid I shall continue to regard them as barbarous reactionaries."

It seems your moral vision is that England should only be allowed a vote on it's future once that future is part of the tradition you support. The idea that a people must prove itself ready for democracy by supporting a particular set of policies is the talk of colonialists throughout history.

Peter Davidson makes a very thought-provoking contribution to the debate. The forces of globalisation do make the viability of nation states as self-sufficient units highly relative. Supporters of the unitary British state try to get round this by configuring Britain as already a sort of supra-nation state: a state that in its original foundation just as much as in its 21st-century incarnation transcends the traditional nation state (e.g. England) and is a sort of microcosm of the global village as a whole. In this way, supporters of the British project hope to obviate and discredit calls for English national institutions and nation status as retrograde and as denying the modern realities of globalisation which, they say, Britain embraces and over which it exercises a leadership role.

As Britain is already a supra-nation of this sort - a nation that transcends and has a vision of itself on a plane of ideas that are beyond the archaic, relative and regressive identification of its citizens with any more narrow, nationalistic identity and hidebound set of political objectives (such as, typically, aspirations to English nationhood), this enables them to perform the clever trick of thinking that if you regionalise Britain (to bring day-to-day governance and public-sector service provision closer to the point of delivery in the way Peter Davidson indicates), you're not in fact dismembering Britain as such even if you are breaking up the unitary state of the UK and perpetuating the denial of nation status to England. And this is because Britain exists as an idea of statehood beyond nation, bound together by common, universal values and ideals. And THAT Britain can persist even if the traditional nation state does not survive: indeed, the perpetuation of the British ideal (the ideal of Britain itself) is predicated on the denial of nation status (and nation statehood) to its citizens, above all to the English.

It seems to me that Peter Davidson is articulating another version of this vision: one of 'British regions' within the EU and the global economy, as opposed to an English nation. But the way in which he expresses this is ambiguous. He talks of citizens demanding "the emergence of a closer more immediate state apparatus displaying competency in other areas of government policy with more impact over their day to day lives; Education, Healthcare, Law&Order are the usual candidates in this respect". That seems to me precisely what many English nationalists are demanding for England, as this is only what the people of Scotland and Wales have already been granted. And many of them, like myself, see no contradiction between this and a federal structure that preserves some role for a continuing UK with responsibilities across all four (or three, if the Scots quit first) nations it encompasses: a federal UK state looking towards and relating with the global world of which it is part; with constituent nations dealing with home affairs.

David, aka Britology Watch

A federal UK, even with a parliament for England as a whole, seems the most reasonable way out of the West Lothian problem, but it might not put the inequity of the Barnett Formula to rest. That is why some of us would like total independence for Britain's nations, including Cornwall, I must add.

I don't accept all the scare stories about the so-called 'dangers' of the UK breaking up - what dangers? Did the west consider the very real dangers of Yugoslavia breaking up in 1991? They knew what would happen - and did happen - if we gave in to arrogant German demands to prematurely and illegally recognise Croatian and Slovenian independence without first making sure that minorities remaining in those states were guaranteed their rights. We all know the result of that, especially me because I was sometimes in the middle of it. No such dangers can possibly arise if and when Britain breaks up, yet we are made to feel it will be somehow disasterous. For whom, I wonder? Certainly not for ordinary people like us.

A Britain of independent nations will, in fact, be just as united as it is now - probably more so - because we will have settled the current devolutionary, healthcare and educational problems that came into existence as a result of New (World Order) Labour's policies.

I always cite Scandinavia as a good model for us - independent nations with no borders, free movement of people and goods, and many shared institutions, even though one of them, Norway, is not even in the EU. Yet one of these nations cannot so easily sponge off of the others, dominate their foreign and domestic policies or deprive them of basic health and educational rights AND make them pay for their own disadvantages!!!

The argument that globalisation, per se, is devaluing the sovereignty of nation-states is somewhat vacuous. Did we lose our individuality (by which I mean the choice to be and act as individuals) as a result of forming ourselves into families, villages, towns, counties and nations? True, we had to compromise, but real freedom, as I've said before, only exists in concert with risk, responsibility and respect for others. Real freedom is the right to be left alone, and responsibility means leaving others alone, which is why those who gain power over others actually lose power over themselves to the same degree. Real power is power over ourselves, not over anyone else. English Common Law, uniquely, recognises this fact more than most other systems, and that's what really frightens those who misunderstand power and become seduced by it. That could be why England frightens so many people.

The fact is that the nation is one link in a chain of human groupings from the family up to the supranational level, all of which, in theory at least, serve to guarantee us our freedoms as individuals. Every link is vital and if one is lost, or distorted, the others are undermined as genuine democratic institutions. We see this already with the decline of the family and how the results of it are infecting other areas of our lives.

Slowly eliminating England's identity, while preserving those of Scotland and Wales, is not the route to, or result of, anything as grand sounding as globalisation. It is nothing more than petty, provincial spite by victim junkies, egged on by a ruling party that no longer bears any resemblance to its origins or perhaps even its last manifesto!

Clearly, judging from the above, I cannot post photos in the comments, so here is the link to the picture of the CEP booklet http://www.flickr.com/photos/lmiatoque/2192718041/

Just the sort of arrogance to be expected of the self acclaimed cognoscenti.

Why do you assume that the English national consciousness Is "revived" I prefer to think that, in keeping with the sense of English reserve, until devolution reared it's ugly head, there was no need to declare nor acclaim that "we are English", it was a known fact.

The reason for the need to assert our nationality is that someone (Welsh) like John Prescott claims that "English is not a recognised national identity". Someone (Scots) such as Lord Falconer avers that "there is no call for an English Parliament nor will there be one for the foreseeable future", a statement made without the evidence of a referendum such as afforded to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. Open Democracy my backside.

Peter, ultimately I'm sure you'd agree that it would be up to the English people to decide in a referendum if they wanted the type of constitutional arrangements you are advocating. Although you argue a strong, rational case for them, I feel fairly confident they would be rejected. National identity is a powerful emotional force, and not always a bad thing for that, as it has the potential to bind people to one another and give them a sense of belonging: something which is so important in the alienating globalised world.

I think English people feel more attached to England in this way than they do to regions that have very little heritage, unlike the German ones. Counties are perhaps another thing. Cornwall and Devon - particularly Cornwall, of course - are also something of a special case. But I think many (maybe the majority) of 'native' Cornish people would prefer the establishment of a Cornish nation to that of a South-West Region of which Cornwall was just a part.

David, aka Britology Watch

Thanks for the clarification, Peter. I feel your ideas, original and thought-provoking as they are, will still be thought of as breaking up the nation of England to which people - myself included - continue to be profoundly attached. Do you really think that most people living in England would welcome the more localised democracy you envisage if it means further erosion of Englishness and the parcelling up of England?

David, aka Britology Watch

"I do find all this labeling highly disturbing. i.e. Blair…. he’s Scottish… so what!"

We're the English! So what? Oh, so what? Of course it matters to you just 'cos we're English so stop being hypocritical. Blair is scottish and not English but it should'nt matter to us? Why not? It matters to people like you that we're English!

“the English nationalist ‘project’ does often seems to boil down to europhobia, immigration controls, celtophobia and Swiss style ‘neutrality’ (or is it hypocrisy).”

Europhobia? No! English defence! I can see right through you. When any English person defends England and Englishness it's phobic; when the poor lickly oppressed keltoi defend their own interests it's always, "oh yes they're just standing up for themselves". Well, that's illogical. It cant be one thing for one nation and the opposite for another.

Immigration controls? What? Like welsh people whining about "too many" English people buying cottages in wales you mean? Or do you mean scots going on and on about "white settlers", i.e. English folk?

Celtiphobia? Aha! ha! See? Any time the English defend themselves, it's described in a negetive fashion. The English, as everyone knows, have very good reasons for being keltoiphobic.

David, aka Britology Watch

Thanks for the considered response to my posting

I need to pick you up on one section of your remarks.

"But the way in which he expresses this is ambiguous. He talks of citizens demanding “the emergence of a closer more immediate state apparatus displaying competency in other areas of government policy with more impact over their day to day lives; Education, Healthcare, Law&Order are the usual candidates in this respect”. That seems to me precisely what many English nationalists are demanding for England, as this is only what the people of Scotland and Wales have already been granted."

Perhaps I did not express myself in succinct and unequivocal terms.

Firstly I would contest your interpretation of the current state of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution.

None of the devolved tiers of governance established so far boast anything close to the kind of semi-autonomous status I am advocating, not only for English Regions (outside London) but also for them (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London).

When I claim that "citizens are demanding the emergence of a closer more immediate state apparatus displaying competency in other areas of government policy" I mean that they will react very favourably to the concept of robust, semi-autonomous, financially self-sustaining sub-national entities. In purely practical terms, that process means transferring both 100& competency and commensurate tax raising powers from the centre to these sub-national units. That level of power dispersal simply has not yet occurred within the UK devolution programme.

Sub-National means, in this context, the tier directly below the UK level. I envisage a looser federal framework backed by a written British Constitution defining the role of any UK federal body and its various sub-national constituent elements. A partnership between intrinsically equal elements rather than a lop-sided arrangement with one hegemonic component.

I argue against an all-England entity in this respect because it will dominate (due specifically to its size in relation to the others) and fatally unbalance any federal framework based on these kind of sub-national units.

This does not mean I agree with the shape of the current official English Regional Map because I don't. In fact I believe that said map contributes in no small manner to the current levels of public antipathy toward further English Regional devolution.

England as a single entity will also perpetuate the same centralising tendencies, which have so undermined public confidence in the UK model as an effective mechanism for delivering universally equitable governance.

I agree with David regarding Cornwall, although I've yet to hear many English nationalists openly recognising Cornwall's non-English identity.

I was invited to join the EDP over a year ago but declined because of their attitude towards Monmouthshire which, they claim, is English. They want a referendum there to finally decide the national status of the county. In that case, Cornwall, as well as Berwick-Upon-Tweed, also deserve the same right. The rest of England, however, is, in my view, indivisible.

An independent England, without Berwick, Cornwall or Monmouthshire is still going to be the world's fourth or fifth largest economy with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and membership of G8, so why is it so important to hang on to them?

Besides, a free England can well do without any part of it claiming to be 'oppressed' by the 'wicked English' while at the same time squeezing guilt-edged funds and privileges from them.

I support an English parliament. I think we desperately need to popularise the radical English heritage.

So perhaps not all supporters of an English parliament see themselves in that tradition. Perhaps a few are barbarous reactionaries.

But what's right? That's the question.

David

Whilst cultural and historical influences are important they are not the only lens through which this issue can be appreciated.

Political, constitutional and economic factors must also be "weighed in the balance" before any rational consensus emerges.

For me, "English" cultural values remain strong. The fact that perceived dilution of "Englishness" arouses such strong emotions is sufficient evidence to illustrate that they are valued and will be defended.

The looser federal UK framework I envisage does not, in my opinion, threaten English cultural values. Rather it enhances their expression through more localised traditions. Cultural values in the Cornwall/Devon peninsula are (relatively speaking) quite different from those in Northumbria, different again from East Anglia, London, etc. Yes, they do share some similarities, particularly in terms of their linguistic transmission.

What a federal framework based on equal partners will achieve is the development of a radically different form of political/constitutional culture, in which the UK is no longer dominated by a London-centric top down approach. In this respect Britain could become more like Germany with clearly defined tiers of governance, dispersal of effective political power and a more equitable allocation of scarce resources.

Reinforcing Englishness through the vehicle of an all-England political institution carries with it obvious constitutional threats to the long-term viability of any proposed federal framework. On balance I believe that the advantages of a partnership between equals far outweighs any perception of potential threats to the English way of life.

Re Ivor Cornish's comments above, to be honest I thought 'Ivor Cornish' sounded like a nom de plume, too. If it isn't, it sounds as though you've got a Cornish ancestor somewhere down the paternal line; unless you count that as 'English' - I'm sure Philip Hosking might have something to say about that!

I write under a pseudonym for personal reasons but do intend to eventually 'come out' as a political blogger and writer when the time is right. David is my real forename (influence of my Welsh mother); my surname is typically English, although some might see it as 'Norman' - i.e. typically English.

Your comment does seem to leave some ambiguity about your attitude towards your and your children's Englishness, and what the role of genetic heritage is in relation to nationality. I suppose the question I would want to ask is what do your children consider themselves to be, not in a politically or genetically inclusive way but in terms of the nation they identify with and consider home. That's what constitutes national identity; genetics has absolutely nothing to do with it. This sort of discussion could be completely insulting towards people of 'non-British' genetic descent who view themselves as English, Scottish, British or whatever.

I notice that David Marquand hasn't replied to my question about what nationality he considers himself as being / having; not that I was really expecting or demanding a reply - that's his business. But I think the shyness or evasiveness of politicians and commentators to actually declare which nationality they consider themselves to be is a serious and relevant issue. For all his Britishness guff, I'm sure Gordon Brown considers himself to be Scottish at the level I'm referring to: Kirkcaldy / Scotland is home; he identifies with Scotland and Scottish people, in his heart and soul rather than in the formal, legal sense in which he sees himself as British. That does matter to any consideration of his drive to establish and consolidate a British nation and national identity.

Similarly, David Cameron's equivocation about his real national identity in his recent piece in the Daily Telegraph (part of that paper's now abandoned 'Proud to be British' campaign) seemed hypocritical to me: on the one hand, he was saying 'I'm really British' (mixed Welsh, Scottish and English ancestry); but then it was obvious that if it came to a football match between England and Scotland, he'd support England - i.e. he's English in his heart, and England is 'home'. And don't get me on to Nick Clegg!

These things do matter because nationhood is nothing if it doesn't live in people's hearts as well as in their passports. The point is most 'British' people don't identify as British in the former sense but as English, Scottish, Welsh or (Northern) Irish (or Cornish, pace Philip Hosking). And that makes any 'British project' fundamentally flawed and unlikely to ever succeed.

David, aka Britology Watch

Maybe only a small (but crucial) procedural point but (hypothetically speaking) let us imagine that a process of informed debate was undertaken, leading to a written British Constitution and the establishment of some form of looser federal UK framework.

If during that process it became clear that there was a demand to reshape the English Regional Map into more meaningful and relevant units and a referendum was held simultaneously across England offering its entire electorate a straight choice between semi-autonomous Regional units (in the form demanded during the consultation process) or an all-England Parliament, what would happen if a clear majority in one or more of said nascent Regions voted to establish an accountable Parliament but the overall vote across the whole of England was in favour of an English Parliament - which collective preference would take precedence (in your opinion)?

This might sound like nit-picking but an important constitutional principle is at stake here, given that such an outcome is possible. Prior to 2003, every single public opinion poll indicated a majority in favour across all Regions except the South-East and amongst the more peripheral Regions the desire for self-government was at its strongest, presumably because they thought they might be offered real devolution?

I am confident that in any potential peripheral Region based perhaps on Northumbria, Yorkshire, the North West (traditional Lancashire + Cheshire) or the Cornish Peninsula, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favour of greater autonomy from an even more centralised England.

Your race isn't important to me - welcome to England.

"What moral vision does the revived English national consciousness embody?"

This is an emergent phenomenon - only time will tell. I hope the moral vision is actually moral - a much reduced armed forces, small government, no arms trade, freedom of and from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of protest, referenda on the big issues, entrepreneurial, technologically advanced - at peace.

Regarding claims of right No need to re-invent the wheel. I'd like to see English MPs sign something identical to the Scottish Claim of Right with Scotland replaced with England and called the English Claim of Right.

It would be a start anyway.

Ivor, mate. I too was asked to appear on the 100% English? show. As it was Channel 4, I smelled a rat - so I decided to detail out some of my known ancestors... One guy left Liverpool at the age of 15, stowed away on a ship and ended up as a gaucho in South America - he then travelled north the New York and became an actor on Broadway - all before he was 20. Another was a very close friend of Eric Blair (George Orwell) - he stayed in my relation's house while he researched his book - 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.

This relation was a communist, was regularly followed by the Special Branch, and knew amongst others, Ernie Bevin and double agent Tom Driberg.... pretty exciting stuff, eh?...

Channel 4 seemed very enthusiastic - until they asked me what I thought of being English. I confirmed I was a staunch English nationalist who wrote about English issues. Then we got to the nitty gritty - they started to ask whether I considered myself 100% English. I confirmed I did. They asked who my English heroes were..... I told them all the usuals - Nelson, Drake, Churchill (even though he was half American) - and Ian Wright.....

Stunned silence. And it was all going so well wasn't it? They thought they had got their English nationalist of the right wing variety, I wondered whether they thought there was any other kind? - But my kind of English nationalism is of civic persuasion. I am a rabid Englishman - but then again, IMHO, so is Ian Wright.

And hey, guess what? They decided I wasn't 'the right kind of material' for the programme.

And in the interests of fairness, I would just love to see programmes made in the future with the titles -

'So you think you are Scottish? nae chance, Jimmy',

'100% Welsh? - Think again, boyo!'

But it would never happen, would it? So why is it OK - open season almost, to forensically analyse and chicken-entrail an English ident in the hope of making the subjects look bigotted fools?

My English nationalism (along with the vast majority) is not a variant of the cult of Arminius, nor is it Braveheart with jackboots - so why do Channel 4, my MP, Vince Cable, Jack Straw et al keep telling me it is?

I wonder.

Having traced my family back 2 centuries on both lines, I find that I am, at least until 1793 in Mitcham and 1805 in Worcestershire, without having gone too far on lateral lines, completely English. I am pleased to say that my children have avoided this fate, they are a quarter Scottish and an eighth Welsh. I do find all this labeling highly disturbing. i.e. Blair.... he's Scottish... so what!

On a TV program which had volunteers genetically tested, at least one of whom thought she was from pure Anglo Saxon stock, and some of whom were rabidly English, found their genes revealed that they were in fact mongrels. ( this is a word used by a geneticist in an article about the program, and is therefore presumably au courant in such circles, see link below )

The only volunteer who turned out to be less of a mongrel than anyone else was Norman Tebbit.......... curious that.

Go here to read about the program:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/11/05/svgenetic05.xml

One thing that intrigues me about the comments left on OK is the use of 'nom de plumes' by a large number who see themselves as the oppressed English. Why so sheepish do they all have foreign names?

I wonder if the English have not always regarded, Scotland, Wales and N.I. as part of their colonies.

Let it be known that my use of the term "barbarous reactionaries" was sarcastic...

Interesting comment from Terry: England as a force for good in the world and a bastion of freedom, once the ideological and military imperialism of Britishness is stripped away. Got potential. Maybe Marquand could back something like that.

In a way, though, I return to the question of whether the English need a moral vision to be a democratic nation in their own right if that is their wish. Isn't it part of the folly and presumptuousness of our nation - as well as its greatness - that we feel we have to associate our national identity with a great universal vision and moral purpose? That sounds like Britishness again.

Free self-determination is what it boils down to. That isn't a moral cause as such but, rather, the precondition for making moral choices and taking up moral causes. Until we English are truly free to run our own affairs, we can't begin to come together around the distinctively English civic values and moral choices for our future. But it will be our future, and there will be pride and joy at being able to take those decisions truly on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the whole English nation. Politicians and the parties will have to be accountable to the English people. Could make quite a change!

Well, if England were an independent state the EU would be fucked, as would the USA... all the better for the peoples of Europe and America - and beyond.

I don't see why the English need to 'morally justify' their desire for an English Parliament. If they want it they should have it, without the need to jump through other people's hoops to qualify - that is a perversion of the right to self-determination.

Actually I can't see any third option being offered because the long-term status of the UK has a seminal role to play in this equation.

I believe that for the foreseeable future, the UK will continue to exist, albeit perhaps in a looser federal format. If you accept that proposition, it means that the elements making up the Union must form some kind of equitable settlement agreeable to all parties.

It is that settlement, which will define the role and status of each element of any proposed federal UK and should be concluded in the form of a written British Constitution.

If we get that far (and I accept it is a big if) there will only be two options, for the English electorate, to vote upon and they will be mutually exclusive.

Either:

An array of smaller semi-autonomous Regional units of governance

or:

An all-England Parliament (with its location known in advance)

Yes, I agree that there should be some form of "legitimising" majority - maybe 55% - to avoid the possibility of a borderline and thus disputed result, for each of these possible choices.

The either/or option is important because it excludes the potential for the worst possible scenario, the implications of which I have put to English Parliament advocates without any satisfactory reply, and that is both an all England and Regional tiers of governance. In a way this either/or principle has already been established because a mandatory requirement flowing from any vote in favour of English Regional Assemblies (circa 2004) was the abolition of one tier of local government in two-tier authorities.

However, even allowing for this "legitimising" majority clause it would still be possible for 55% of the total English Electorate to vote for an all-England Parliament whilst those in the peripheries opted overwhelmingly in favour of smaller more immediate semi-autonomous Regional Parliaments. Some people might interpret such conflicting outcomes as an effective UDI (from England) on the part of Regions voting for their own Parliaments?

The third option you describe is, in my opinion, an unsustainable scenario and would very quickly fail leading to the only other potential outcome, which is a complete break-up of the UK with each element taking their own relatively separate constitutional route.

It is the ramifications flowing from this latter outcome, which will (in my opinion) ultimately persuade a pragmatic as well as rational (because they would be informed rather than ignorant) English electorate to go for smaller (semi-autonomous) Regions rather than an inherently centralist all-England body.

Peter,

Well, as you say, that's pretty hypothetical, and we'd have to go through several 'if's' to get there: a) that such a process of constitutional consultation took place at all; b) that the outcome that the two alternatives that you and I favour (regional assemblies vs. an English parliament) emerged as the only or main candidates; and c) that the vote went the way you're imagining here.

If such a referendum did take place, there would probably be three options in any case: our two plus a reformed version of the status quo - English affairs governed by the UK parliament, with some mechanism to ensure that the votes of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs couldn't override those of English MPs on English matters. Some form of PR could go quite a long way towards that objective.

In such a tripartite referendum, it would be quite hard for any of the options to command an overall majority. There might have to be a 'play off' between the two most popular. The situation could then get quite complicated. For example, in the case you suggest, if in a 'second round' the options were either the UK or an English parliament (i.e. the regional option was the least popular in the first round), the 'region' that had voted to become a region (if you see what I mean) might elect to stay under the auspices of the UK government while the rest of the country opted for an English parliament. In both scenarios (yours and mine here), the fair option would probably be to leave that region under the control of the UK government for a temporary period (say, five years), allowing the rest of England to go ahead with its parliament. After that temporary period, the region in question could be given the option to permanently become an autonomous region (a la Scotland or Wales), or join up with the rest of England. Such a solution might also provide an answer to the 'Cornish question'.

In a second round, there might also need to be some consideration given to the size of the majority needed to go ahead with either option, e.g. >55%, >60%. To be fair, this would have to work both ways: that sort of clear majority for either an English parliament, reform of the present system or regional government if that was part of the mix. If no clear alternative emerged, we'd have to go back to the drawing board, come up with some more compelling options and try again a couple of years later.

Anyway, it's all speculation. The reality could be a good deal more disappointing, I fear.

David, aka Britology Watch

Ivor Cornish - That DNA TV show wasn't much good. It ignored error margins in the test. If Carol Thatcher is 1/4 middle eastern, which Grandparent did it come from? It deliberately selected people with exaggerated views on Englishness, and hardly talked to Tebbit or anyone else reasonable because the aim was to portray those who thought of themselves as English as racist, and then knock them down. I have written more here:

http://secretperson.wordpress.com/category/english-ethnicity/

No one surrounding the English Parliament movement believes it should be defined by racial purity. I hope you are not seriously suggesting a less than pure bloodline is a reason for denying an English parliament. The same DNA tests would identify the same 'mongrel nature' in Scotland, Wales, France, Spain or Zimbabwe. Why is it only the English are attacked in this way?

Why are you pleased your children avoided the 'fate' of pure English ancestry? What is wrong with being English? According to you, the empire. We are constantly reminded by unionists how the Scots built most of the empire. They seem to get glory, but no blame.

I do not regard Wales, Scotland or NI as colonies and support independence for all. Those who seek English independence are simultaneously attacked for wanting an empire and smirked at as England wouldn't be powerful in the world.

I write under a nom de plume because I think my mates would take the piss as political blogging seems uncool. I am gutless. I have an Anglo-Saxon or Norse name, but I also don't think that matters.

"I loathe the idea of so called pure ethnicity, and am worried by the drum beat of nationalism."

I don't loathe the idea of pure ethnicity, though I doubt such a thing exists on this island. The drum beat of contemporary English nationalism has very little to do with that anyway, it's reactionary, as Marquand points out, and has everything to do with equity, very little do do with race (I don't count the BNP as 'English nationalists' - they are British or White).

The idea that English nationalists are all concerned with immigration has no more basis in fact than me saying that Celtic nationalists are all concerned with 'white settlers'. Speaking personally I'm concerned about mass immigration but I'm not opposed to immigration per se. In fact I'm married to an immigrant, and have been one myself on three occasions.

Ivor Cornish wrote: "Is it because you are famous?"

My fame indeed goes before me but only in 'local' circles.

David, aka Britology Watch

PS. King Ivor - got a bit of a ring to it! (A bit Welsh-sounding, though . . .).

I was invited to go on the 100% English programme, but when I explained that my view of Englishness wasn't based on race they decided they didn't want me after all - sensationalist nonsense is what it was.

One of these days one of these TV companies might commission a programme that shows England in a favourable light.

"That DNA TV show wasn’t much good. It ignored error margins in the test. If Carol Thatcher is 1/4 middle eastern, which Grandparent did it come from? It deliberately selected people with exaggerated views on Englishness, and hardly talked to Tebbit or anyone else reasonable because the aim was to portray those who thought of themselves as English as racist, and then knock them down. I have written more here:"

I read one comment on the programme that said Mrs Thatcher was known to have some Irish/Scottish/both ancestry and therefore wasn't it a bit strange to have her daughter on a show called 100% English. Also why claim you're going to see if people are 100% English is the best the tests you offer narrow down genetically to is 'Northern European' or whatever it was. You might as well say someone is a born and bred Yorkshireman because he comes from somewhere north of Coventry.

Totally crap programme and bang on about it just being an attempt to portray English people as racist.

David Marquand, there is a moral vision for England, even if many English nationalists don't yet see it. You touched upon it when you mentioned the likes of my namesake, Tom Paine, among others.

For me England is an idea as much as a physical nation. The idea is of a libertarian tradition that England once shared with the Scots and Welsh, but they have more readily embraced the statist New Labour approach that you critically mentioned. If Tom Paine were alive today I am sure that he would have seen the same unfairness towards England by the British as that of the British towards the American colonists in 1776. In effect, it is the same situation, an imbalance in representative democracy.

Adam Smith, too, although a Scot, would today have seen more potential for his ideas in England than in his native Scotland which is now riddled with statist nannyism. Another Scot, Samuel Smiles, who demonstrated in the nineteenth century how socialism could work without the need for state intervention, would undoubtedy have seen more fertile ground for his ideas of self help among English working people far more than in the current state dependency of his fellow Scots.

I do not believe for a single moment that the Scots have a greater moral foundation than the English, except perhaps for those in the SNP whom I admire. We see the true nature of many non-SNP Scots in their dealings in the Westminster Government - the so-called 'ethical' foreign policy of Robin Cook, for example, that was merely a front for renewed imperial activity that has so far led to illegal foreign interference and the loss of thousands of innocent lives. It is to his credit that Cook saw the error of his ways prior to his tragic death and opposed intervention in Iraq.

You are right that too many so-called English nationalists are still of the right-wing, Anglo-Saxon ilk who fail to realise that anyone can be English if they so wish. But England is a natural libertarian nation that would never simply tow the line of the so-called 'international community' without question. That is why we have been able to produce men like Orwell, Blake, Paine, Byron, and so on, as well as many Scots, Welsh, Irish and other heroes who lived among us and became part of the English tradition of dissent. That could be the real reason why Englishness is suppressed, because it is we who possess the real moral cause here, and because, as an independent state, England could create a political tsunami that might just change the world for the better, and for everyone in it. What better moral foundation could any nation have than that?

I think we desperately need to popularise the radical English heritage

That's one argument that I wouldn't disagree with, and I'd be all for better education on these things. It's quite another argument to say that people who campaign for democracy and national sovereignty are barbarous reactionaries (similar insults are levelled at the SNP by Marquand's colleagues in the Labour Party).

It's left-wing intellectuals like David Marquand need to make the case for an English identity that takes its cue from that history. Unfortunately people of his ilk are more interested in Britishness and leaving Englishness to the far-right. The English 'intelligensia' has failed England in a way that Scottish national thinkers have not, because for them there is no ideological difference between greater England and imperialist Britain. When Gordon Brown claims the narrative of English emancipation, liberty and democratic history in the name of Britishness it was only, for a long time, the CEP that pointed out that he was appropriating English acheivements for Britain.

I would suggest that Marquand reads Simon Lee's new book.

The CEP has long been aware of the Scottish Claim of Right and the 'sovereignty of the people' that it establishes in spirit if not in law (yet). We envy it, not because of 'me-tooism' but because it is a noble claim. We make the same claim for England, for England to have a parliament so that we can build a 'new Jerusalem'. However, the CEP does not say how an English parliament should acheive that, or even what form the English parliament should take. That is for the people to decide; real people for whom, increasingly, there is a difference between England and Britain, even if our leaders haven't yet realised or understood the extent of that travel.

Peter, Thanks for your clarification about how you envisage a process of constitutional consultation would take place and the regional system of governance you would like as one of the options.

I'm glad you said you would be happy to abide by the decision of the English - not British - electorate. In the unlikely event that a majority of the British people as a whole voted for a regional system such as the one you favour, but not a majority of English voters, it would clearly be an unfair outcome for England to adopt the system. Equally, if the English electorate are ever offered the choice of an English parliament or even independence in a referendum, it would be unfair for that to go ahead in isolation from a consultation and vote on the constitutional and wider implications for the other parts of the surviving Union. (Just as we English nats so often point out that the English should have been consulted on the present devolution settlement, or offered a similar form of self-governance at the same time.)

David, aka Britology Watch

Philip Hosking writes

"However, that being said, the English nationalist ‘project’ does often seems to boil down to europhobia, immigration controls, celtophobia and Swiss style ‘neutrality’ (or is it hypocrisy)."

We have been attacked both for neutrality and empire building, can't win! Mostly people just support democracy, and there are a range of opinions in the pro-English parliament blogging community. Personally I do favour leaving the EU (EUphobe not Europhobe), controlling immigration and not interfering in the affairs of other countries (or neutrality if you like). I like the Celts, but more the Alex Salmonds of this world than Unionists like Britishness Brown. Others disagree.

What most of these arguments come down too is that democracy is not right for England because those who support it have conservative views. I think I was more convinced by the regionalists.

[...] a couple of posts on Our Kingdom (here & here) David Marquand has accused the campaign for an English parliament of being [...]

Well said Terry. That's nail on head as far as I'm concerned.

If only our leaders had similar vision and optimism.

secretperson

Sorry to hear that you regard yourself as gutless. Take no notice of your 'mates' .... it's 'cool' not to hide behind a nom de plume.

You said:- "If Carol Thatcher is 1/4 middle eastern, which Grandparent did it come from? "

To have 25% of ones ethnicity derived from say the middle east does not mean that it all has to come from a single source such as a grandparent.

"Why are you pleased your children avoided the ‘fate’ of pure English ancestry? " I must admit that was a bit of a wind up, partly because I loathe the idea of so called pure ethnicity, and am worried by the drum beat of nationalism.

David you said:- "

"I write under a pseudonym for personal reasons but do intend to eventually ‘come out’ as a political blogger and writer when the time is right. " I hope the time is soon. Is it because you are famous?

David a friend of mine tried to convince me to join Meynon Kernow if the 1970's, one of his arguments was 'if you moved down here with a name like yours boy they would make you king.' I did not move, as although I could see myself in ermine, it was the thought of wearing a Cornish kilt that put me off.

Ivor Cornish Said:

Phil, well said:- ‘English nationalism and conservatism! Never going to be a pretty mix was it? ‘ England has always partly defined itself through it’s war-faring abilities, and it’s colonies.

Blair and his supine M.P.s have attempted to hold onto this tired inflated nonsense by sucking up to the next big kid on the block…. the U.S.

Hence the tragic, and illegal war in Iraq.

----------

Ivor is confusing English with British. The colonialists are British, hence the term Little Englander, which was used as a supposed insult to those English who did not agree with British foreign policy. The term was taken up by Hitler in WW2 and now once again by the British, who assume that to be called English is an insult.

And Tony Blair is Scottish, not English.