I think everything in general should be run better. The country should be run more effeciently. I hope there will not be a total end to the union.

"You know it, I know it, the world knows."

No they don't. Hence even in English you have "North America", "Central America", "South America" and "Latin America". Calling the US "America" is perhaps a bit like calling the UK "England" as many have done.

"maybe we should ask the Shetlands if they want to go their own way, or return to Norway."

I have mentioned this elsewhere. Mind you, they would probably be with Denmark, not Norway, like the Faroe Islands (or formerly Iceland) if they had remained under Scandinavian control.

"And like living creatures, languages also die. Let it go."

Why should we let it go? So the Cornish can retain a sense of self-loathing and a lack of self-confidence? Believe me, this phenomenon's been going on the world over, and in Cornwall too. Some people there think if you have a Cornish accent you are inbred, and unintelligent.

"Do you think he actually does know, but has an ulterior motive?"

Aye, it's called staying in power. He's come in at the wrong time. He's a Scot trying to climb his way up the English political tree, only to find that his home country's moving on without him. It'a bit like his treatment of Tony Blair, he could (and probably should) have deposed of Blair years ago. We all knew that they didn't like one another.

If we are to go by language then the vast majority of Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc should all still be part of the English empire.

So, are we ready to start building the new England yet? I stumbled across the following - looking for the origin of the "three lions" symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

This tells me that only 2,000 Cornish can speak Cornish, out of a half million county population, so I will have to go with "secretperson" on that one.

As I read the wiki article, I started to realise that we English, lost the plot of nationhood some time back. Why were we not as vociferous about it as the Scots or the Welsh, yes, and the Cornish. As empire managers, was it beneath us to think of taking out some form of insurance for the future? Even when the empire was declining did not anyone say "... look lads, time for plan B ..."

Who do we know, that can write "Magna Carta: the Sequel" for us? I am starting to think we can do this, are you up for it? Can we still petition our queen for an English parliament?

"If you consider our Cornish Duchy to be part of your nation then what about speaking a different language well into the modern period and today having a language revival going from strength to strength?

Maga - the Cornish Language Partnership: http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=39262"

When I speak of a nation I mean people, not land. If the people of Cornwall identify as a separate nation to the English, they can and should have their own parliament (well you already do, but with real powers). It is not up to me to define! I have to say, language is one of the unifying forces in a country, if the Cornish seriously started speaking their own language as a first language it'd be a serious step towards rediscovering your nationhood.

However despite your personal opinion, Cornwall is quite integrated with England (bloody second-home owners, eh?) and if they consider themselves English I'd be happy to accept them into the fold. I wouldn't mind a more complex relationship to recognise Cornwall's historic nationhood, as long as it is equal. We don't want the West Lothian question replaced with a West-of-the-Tamar question!

Interesting stuff - would be much better in a forum so we could create threads of individual posts though?

Civic nationalism as opposed to ethnic nationalism? I kinda assumed we were talking about the former. My view is that Englishness should be defined by who chooses to be here and is legally entitled to live here.

The democratic deficit of the West Lothian Question and the fiscal deficit of the Barnett Formula affects everyone living in England, regardless of race, religion or place of birth. An EP working in the interest of the English people would be working for them!

Post Union a significant number of people would possibly choosing dual (or triple) citizenship. Maybe they should pay taxes in each of their chosen countries for the privilege.

As for a location for an EP somewhere more central makes sense. What's more important is that the EP is not like Westminster. Many fewer MPs for starters and I think it would be a very good thing to remove party politics completely. MP's should either vote according to their conscience (absolutely in accord with manifesto pledges) or in some new way should represent the will of their constituents on matters.

A post Union EP should give Cornwall a referendum. If they want to go it alone then that should be up to them. I don't think they would vote to leave England myself and envisige the EP being much more sympathetic towards the countryside and there should be more money about to actually implement new projects. Making it much more likely that the people of Cornwall and Berwick choose to stay English.

David, Britishness is not to do with civic nationalism, in fact it’s not even about being British. There is nothing “British” about Brown’s “Britishness” campaign. It is aimed exclusively at England in an attempt to divert our attention from the fact his constituents are not affected by 85% of his legislative programme.

His only authority, or claim to a mandate, in England is to divert us with the claim “we’re all British”. Ask yourself why the flag waving and Britishness classes are confined to England? Why did “Britishness not exist before Mr Bean was crowned PM?

As for how the Scots (or the English) will define themselves, post devolution, they can use the same formula that the Irish used. Everyone living there gets a passport. Anyone outside Ireland with an ancestor that lived there pre separation can apply for one too.

"If we are to go by language then the vast majority of Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc should all still be part of the English empire."

And Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Not sure about the USA.

Joking aside, I think the common language is one reason Britain has lasted as long as it has. Without it we'd almost certainly have felt separate enough to go our own ways in the past.

"The language doesn’t even exist and from what I’ve read"

Well, you've read rubbish then. Cornish exists in the same way Hebrew exists - it may have died, but now there are children that speak it as their mother tongue. Whether it is the same language or not is not the question, but it is a living tongue again, albeit on a small scale.

"Would you, for instance, have to ‘opt in’ or ‘opt out’ of being registered as a Scottish citizen, or a mixture of the two?"

A mixture of the two. It's not really an issue - you'd probably find certain people would either throng to it or run away from it, depending on their viewpoint.

'each “national” parliament'

No need for the inverted commas, my friend, but you should consider putting them around "America", because that's not really a country - it's just the bit between Tierra del Fuego and the Bering Strait - or Patagonia and Hudson Bay if you prefer. ;-)

The USA on the other hand, is.

"As I read the wiki article, I started to realise that we English, lost the plot of nationhood some time back. Why were we not as vociferous about it as the Scots or the Welsh, yes, and the Cornish. As empire managers, was it beneath us to think of taking out some form of insurance for the future?"

Surely the answer is that the English, by and large, have equated Britain with England and British with English? Even today these terms are used interchangably, by the media, etc.

"His only authority, or claim to a mandate, in England is to divert us with the claim “we’re all British”. Ask yourself why the flag waving and Britishness classes are confined to England? Why did “Britishness not exist before Mr Bean was crowned PM?"

It's not an exercise in diverting England - there's more to it than that. London's grip on Scotland, Wales and the north east of Ireland is slipping fast. Not to mention the ever growing ethnic variety within England itself, and the inability of some people to consider non-white people English for some unknown reason.

I think you are partly right, but it is not the full story. Brown has to get himself accepted by English people. Brown is also trying to americanise the UK yet more, like Blair did - impress loyalty to the state on people (rather than the Crown - another dying institution), create a supreme court... all to be followed soon (no doubt), by school kids swearing allegiance to the stripe strangled banner of the increasingly disunited kingdoms.

"I don’t think they would vote to leave England myself and envisige the EP being much more sympathetic towards the countryside and there should be more money about to actually implement new projects. Making it much more likely that the people of Cornwall and Berwick choose to stay English."

Actually I have a quote from Alan Beith (MP for Berwick), saying that an English parliament would not benefit the "south west or north east" - which would cover both Berwick and Cornwall, even though neither is as solidly English as Kent or Yorkshire.

"if the Cornish seriously started speaking their own language as a first language it’d be a serious step towards rediscovering your nationhood."

Cornish is the national language of Cornwall, but there are plenty of other nations which have autonomy/independence, but which speak English, such as the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, New Zealand and so on.

"Why were we not as vociferous about it as the Scots or the Welsh, yes, and the Cornish."

Because the English dominate the Union in sheer numbers. 50 million out of 54 milllion, if I remember rightly, and the majority of MPs. The situation's a bit different there.

The best thing that English nationalists could do is to reclaim their identity from the rabid right.

"I don’t think speaking different languages 600 years ago is relevant to whether or not England should have a parliament"

If you consider our Cornish Duchy to be part of your nation then what about speaking a different language well into the modern period and today having a language revival going from strength to strength?

Maga - the Cornish Language Partnership: http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=39262

The whole debate about regions is so stupid! Every country in the world has regional differences. There are regional differences in London if you please! In America, my country, there are vast regional and cultural differences between Texas and New York. However, I would bet that no self-respecting New Yorker or Texan would deny their American nationality. The same goes for England: there are differences from region to region, but this should be enough to constitute a nation.

Cornwall as a separate country seems quite stupid. The language doesn't even exist and from what I've read, there are fight over three different standards. This, no disrespect to my Cornish brethren, is about money than any real sense of nationhood. It sounds made up. Of course, I've only read about Cornwall, so I could be 100% wrong.

England should not be chopped up. If you're going to give it a parliament, give it one for the entire country. The notion that give it one would give too much power is nonsense. In the US, California is by far the largest, but there are parliamentary mechanism to temper that (for example, in the Senate, it only gets two senators like Nevada, which has less than 4m people compared with California's 36m).

The UK should go federal: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, etc. should get a set in the federal parliament. And each "national" parliament should be in charge of things that directly affect their home countries. Matters such as defense, international relations, federal taxes, and relations with the UK can be kept in London (the federal capital).

The English capital needs to be placed far away from London (too much power is concentrated there and in the Southeast).

It will not be a clean set up and this is no storybook ending, but it will solve the question

Ironically, I've noticed that since Scotland and Wales received devolved governments, the English are now finding a sense of nationhood and I see the cross of St. George more often (and not just by football hooligans). Before, in the 1980s, it was the Union Jack.

Good luck! But whatever happens, remember to be respectful to one another and provide support.

Civic nationalism is also what the proponents of British values seek to make the basis of British 'national identity' and citizenship. I think it can be tactically useful for English nationalists to advocate English civic nationalism as an alternative to British civic nationalism, and as a foil to accusations that English nationalism is ethnic and 'mono-cultural'.

However, I think acceptance of a set of fundamental values, be they British or English, is not sufficient to define national identity at either a personal or official level. By emphasising civic nationalism, the SNP rather evades what could become a difficult question if independence started to become a serious possibility: who would qualify as a 'Scottish citizen'; how would you formally define Scottish nationality? Would you, for instance, have to 'opt in' or 'opt out' of being registered as a Scottish citizen, or a mixture of the two? Opting in would mean self-identifying Scots living elsewhere, as well as Scots living in Scotland, would have to say they wanted to be counted as Scottish citizens; opting out would mean anyone resident in Scotland would have to declare if they did not want to be registered as officially Scottish. Both options have unsatisfactory aspects to them; and there would have to be a more or less arbitrary set of formal criteria for distinguishing between people who had an automatic right to be considered as Scots, and those who didn't, such as certain types of recent migrant.

A bit of a minefield, in other words. Which isn't to say that it couldn't all be worked out sensibly to the satisfaction of almost everyone concerned. But the point is that Scottish identity, in this context, rests on far more than merely subscribing to a set of civic values. Ultimately, it's based on subjective identification with, and love for, a culture, people, place and way of life. And this is also the reason why the true national identity of most people living in England is English (associated with that emotional and personal level of identity), not British (civic values and ideological principles).

David, aka Britology Watch

'In which case, the answer to Ray Bell’s question, “What’s a Cockney of Greek and Jewish ancestry got in common with the Lord of the Manor in Midsomer Worthy?”, is that they’re both very much, and equally, English.'

That's mainly my point, but they're also extremely different backgrounds. I deliberately avoided the matter of skin colour, as that can turn into a funny thread! I wasn't really talking about race - hence I went for Jew and Greek, rather than West Indian or Pakistani - because such a person often looks much the same a white indigenous Englishman does.

Terry, I think you are the first to put forward the concept of "civic nationalism" and the American way, on this site, well done.

A few centuries back, the Americans new what this meant and they made Magna Carta their own. The English just forgot it and the twenty five Barons who held most of the shares in it, coped out.

Freeborn John at http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2007/10/monarchy-constitutions-and.html makes an amusing read. Notice any similarities between then and now?

“…perhaps England isn’t very homogenous at all. What’s a Cockney of Greek and Jewish ancestry got in common with the Lord of the Manor in Midsomer Worthy?”

Homogeny does not equal racial purity in my assessment. England has a very rich genetic mix, it always has and I believe that to be our strength. I claim to be 50% Irish and 100% English. I don’t say this because I’m crap at maths. I’m trying to say that genetically my mother’s side came from Ireland, but I have only ever lived in England. I consider myself to be English, so that’s what I am.

The biggest challenge we are facing, mainly in England, is continued mass immigration. There is a concept called “civic nationalism” (also embraced by the SNP). This is where anyone, regardless of race, place of birth etc etc, can subscribe to a set of values and call themselves a citizen of that nation. It serves a community very well when there is a large influx of immigrants and has been used by the USA very effectively. They swear allegiance to the flag and constitution of the United States, but they are really subscribing to the “American way”. No one else has taken a more diverse set of people and integrated them so effectively.

This is the nationalist model I subscribe to. Newcomers can belong to a nation, even one as homogenous as England, by subscribing to values (imagined or not) of fair play, favouring the underdog, democracy, tolerance etc and IMHO it will serve us very well.

"England spoke different languages right into the middle ages, something similar to Welsh survived in Cumberland into the 1200s, and Norse may have still been spoken in the Danelaw post Norman conquest."

And Old Norse and Old English may have been mutually intelligible. I of course ignored the most obvious language split in England, the Norman French ruling classes and the English speaking others. That language split lasted right into the 15th century (Henry IV who took the throne in 1399 was said to be the first English speaking king). But as interesting as this historical discussion is, I don't think speaking different languages 600 years ago is relevant to whether or not England should have a parliament.

"What’s a Cockney of Greek and Jewish ancestry got in common with the Lord of the Manor in Midsomer Worthy?"

They both consider themselves to be English - and really that's all there is to it.

Presumably, we'd all basically agree that Englishness and Scottishness are terms that can and do encompass considerable cultural diversity, including cultures not indigenous to these islands. Another issue related to the question of defining what constitutes Scottish and English nationality is encouraging persons of Asian, Afro-Caribbean or other non-indigenous ethnic background to view themselves as Scottish or English in the first instance, rather than British, which is the identity they've hitherto been encouraged to embrace.

In which case, the answer to Ray Bell's question, "What’s a Cockney of Greek and Jewish ancestry got in common with the Lord of the Manor in Midsomer Worthy?", is that they're both very much, and equally, English.

David, aka Britology Watch

"Edinburgh is an Anglophonic, modern financial centre, whereas the Western Isles and Highlands are Celtic in language and culture. Scotland was always torn between the Catholic Highlands and the Protestant lowlands. Glasgow was the first British city to close its gates on Bonnie Prince Charlie and the battle of Culloden was fought between the British army (including many lowland Scots) and a highland rebel army. I’ve heard Glaswegians say Edinburgs (?) are English and fellow Glaswegians to be Fenians whose blood they’d like to be knee deep in."

Again, not as simple as Walter Scott would have it.

Culloden Jacobites were mainly from the Lowland North East, and were Episcopalian. Not North West and RC.

Galloway spoke Gae,ic right into the early modern period, and areas in Stirlingshire and just to the north of Glasgow spoke it even longer. In fact some parts of the Highlands lost Gaelic earlier than some parts of the Lowlands! Gaelic placenames can be found in all of the mainland, including Edinburgh. It's only in east Caithness and Berwick upon Tweed they peter out (on the west, they can be found right on the English border, and even over it)

"I’m just answering the accusation that England is not a homogenous nation "

Believe me, we hear this all the time. Divide and conquer perhaps England isn't very homogenous at all. What's a Cockney of Greek and Jewish ancestry got in common with the Lord of the Manor in Midsomer Worthy?

I'm not in the best position to talk about diversity in England but In what is popularly considered England today there are two often competing poles of indigenous national identity. One is England and the other much smaller is Cornwall.

Wishing only to build on the valid if but brief point of Anax, "What about Cornwall", any constitutional settlement of the English question that does not recognise Cornish specificity would be as unjust for the Cornish as the current situation is now for the English.

"You are right of course that the different “regions” of England fought each other in the early middle ages. Although that was a long long time ago. I think they spoke different dialects rather than different languages though. Certainly not as different as Gaelic and Lowland Scots. "

England spoke different languages right into the middle ages, something similar to Welsh survived in Cumberland into the 1200s, and Norse may have still been spoken in the Danelaw post Norman conquest.

This is without mentioning the later Norman, Flemish/Dutch/Lombard/Breton speakers in various parts of Medieval England.

notice all English Nationalists speak in " the same tired old clichés" , but Peter Davidson does'nt.

Falconer's question is really quite pathetic. Presumably - at least, initially - an independent Scotland and England would remain in the EU; so Scottish people would have automatic rights of residency and work in England, and vice-versa. And with respect to pensions, that's one aspect of UK governance that hasn't been affected by devolution. So the existing pension entitlements of Scottish and English people should be totally unaffected; and if some sort of balancing fiscal / financial measure needed to be introduced to assist the Scottish state in meeting those commitments, then I'm sure it could be amicably worked out.

Falconer's comment does, however, conceal an unspoken issue: how would Scottish and English nationality be defined? At the moment, English people resident in Scotland are entitled to vote in Scottish Parliament elections, and even to stand in such elections. But separation between the two nations would require criteria to define nationality to be formally established. Whatever solution was adopted, it would need to be consistent and agreed between the two nations: it would be ridiculous for the 'citizenship' of certain individuals of mixed parentage, for instance, to become the object of a dispute between Scotland and England. Equally, the rights of 'Scottish' people living in England, and vice-versa, should not be affected in any way by their suddenly becoming 'foreign nationals' in countries where they may have lived for most of their lives.

David, aka Britology Watch

I think the most realistic, perhaps only, way to get an English Parliament will be either an English political party dedicated to getting an English Parliament or either Labour or Conservatives being 'turned' to having the same aim. Only the threat of loss of power, and everything that goes with, will work.

Ray, opponents to an EP often point to England’s lack of homogeneity. It makes me bristle because this is never aimed at Scotland or Wales. Yet every nation has a greater level of granularity, the closer you look at it.

Take industrial, modern south Wales and compare it to touristy north Wales. Look at north Wales’ pockets of Anglophones and Welsh speakers living cheek by jowl yet the latter often accuse the former of lacking Welsh credentials.

Edinburgh is an Anglophonic, modern financial centre, whereas the Western Isles and Highlands are Celtic in language and culture. Scotland was always torn between the Catholic Highlands and the Protestant lowlands. Glasgow was the first British city to close its gates on Bonnie Prince Charlie and the battle of Culloden was fought between the British army (including many lowland Scots) and a highland rebel army. I’ve heard Glaswegians say Edinburgs (?) are English and fellow Glaswegians to be Fenians whose blood they’d like to be knee deep in.

I’m not having a go at Scotland or Wales; I’m just answering the accusation that England is not a homogenous nation with “ok, let’s look at how homogenous the other nations of the UK are”. At least we literally speak the same language.

Hamish, you’re right. The English bought into “Britain” hook, line and sinker for 300 years, only to be mugged now. Our national anthem at sporting events is the UK one (we hate it) and fans used to wave the Union flag at England matches (no more).

Nowadays, in an attempt to put the English genie back in the bottle, the only people that confuse England with Britain are the Government. Look at the way Govt spokesmen never say England… it is “this country”, “this nation” or even worse “the nations and regions”.

The UK comprises of two nations, one principality and a province, so why is Brown so confused? Why does he believe there to be nations (he should mean England and Scotland, but he doesn’t) and regions?

We know Brown’s crap at reorganising the banking system’s checks and balances (that worked fine for 160 years), invading other peoples’ countries, selling gold or putting a penny away for a rainy day… but you’d think he know what made up the “kingdom” he has been appointed to reign over, wouldn’t you?

(Whisper) Do you think he actually does know, but has an ulterior motive?

Peter,

1 of course, we’re an island (-ish), it makes sense

2 NA

3 federal, but it is unlikely to be equitable in the one nation one vote sense. See how the US resolved the problem of California vs Rhode Island for a solution, no point in reinventing the wheel.

4 that’s all we’ve asked for

ps of course England is homogenous: or at least way, way more homogenous than Scotland or Wales (as for NI wake up and smell the cordite!).

pps the "Prescott's Monkey Boy" comment has left an image in my mind that I can't shake. It must have been traumatic to have it aimed at yuo:-)

Bebedora, you said "...merely having an English parliament with the same powers as the Scottish parliament wouldn’t resolve England’s long-standing centralisation."

I absolutely agree. It should be the first thing the English Parliament should tackle. Should we give greater powers to the historic counties, accept the European regions, or go a third way?

Who knows what will be decided? All we know is the English will not be in a position to decide its fate until it has the democratic mechanism to do so, ie. an English Parliament.

The actual circumstances in which the present establishment would sanction a referendum on English devolution that would most likely sound its death knell (the establishment's, that is: a NO to English devolution would sound England's death knell - that's how the argument would polarise) are hard to envisage; as is (are) the question(s) that would be asked in such a referendum. Could the need for such a referendum emerge from a UK constitutional convention recognising that it was not fully competent on its own to resolve the issue of English aspirations to greater self-government? At this stage, the question asked in a referendum could be quite general, e.g. 'Do you support the idea that England should have a parliament of its own with powers similar to, or greater than, those of the current Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly?'

I'm pretty sure you'd get a clear YES vote. Then there could be further UK-wide and England-wide constitutional conventions; or an English convention as a specific subset of a single UK-wide convention that would also elicit the specific concerns and preferences of the other nations of the UK. From this process, a number of options and proposals could emerge, which could result in a series of referendums, some UK-wide, some specific to the countries concerned. And a number of different outcomes would be possible, ranging from independence for some or all of the constituent nations of the UK, to federalism, regional devolution, or some variant of the current unitary system counterbalanced by an equal degree of devolution for all the nations. This would be a long process; but what I'm sure about is that the end result would be quite different from the current, failing unitary UK with its asymmetrical devolution settlement.

David, aka Britology Watch

4. What would a referendum achieve? Referendums have been held in the EU with nations voting NO, politicians then tell them they actually meant to say yes, they change a few words that mean the same thing, then deny a new referendum on the word change, yes this was in the EU but it is the UK government rushing this through parliament right now, would anybody here trust this government with a referendum?

If England voted for their own parliament they would be told that we didn't know what we were doing and actually don't want a parliament at all. Every body knows that an English parliament would not wreck the Union, but it would wreck the Labour party's stranglehold on the English.

A referendum will never happen, this is democracy and we all know that England has no democracy any more.

To Ray Bell:

America is synonymous with the USA. You know it, I know it, the world knows. No need to be cheeky. Hence why people from that country are called Americans in English, Amerikaner/Amerikanerin in German, and americano/a in Spanish/Portugues/Italian, etc!

We're not United Staters, or Unistaters, or USAers.

As far as Cornish goes, it is not a tragedy if a language dies. There are Gaelic-based dialects in the Eastern US (in Appalachia) and they are disappearing. But like people, languages are dynamic. And like living creatures, languages also die. Let it go.

Many thanks to those who responded to my questions.

First of all it is startling to discover the common ground existing within apparently intractable opponents.

Both English Nationalists and those advocating English Regional solutions remain deeply critical of the entrenched culture of centralism pervading our political élites.

Where we differ so markedly is in the nature of strategies proposed to resolve this central flaw in the UK’s constitutional make up. I also believe that both viewpoints remain instinctively democratic in their motivation to effect improvements in the political and constitutional landscape.

I deliberately used certain terms to remain inclusive to all potential solutions. To clarify matters, when I speak of “elements” I am referring to all recognisable geo-political entities currently making up the United Kingdom. This might mean any the following:

United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland

The official government English Regions + Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

English Counties and local authorities, Scottish sub-national divisions, Welsh sub-national divisions, Northern Ireland sub-national divisions

in any combination. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this stage

When I use the term “framework” I mean any formalised arrangement between the elements described above that might arise from a meaningful and informed dialogue between the ordinary people inhabiting said elements. This might take the form of a full blown written constitution (my preference) or something less defined. That will be for the people to decide.

There do seem to be two distinct camps within the broader English Nationalist movement. There are those who see England functioning within the United Kingdom and there are those who see no future in the Union and wish its dismemberment to proceed at the earliest convenient opportunity. Where official CEP policy lies in this field I am not quite sure. Perhaps the original author can enlighten us?

Where I think we are all united is in our scepticism about who (the identity and motivations) of those individuals/groups who might seek to control any process of meaningful dialogue designed to arrive at an equitable and sustainable constitutional settlement. Some believe that any UK government (Conservative or Labour) will seek to either frustrate or strictly limit this process in order to deliver a result suiting their agenda. I happen to concur with much of that sentiment.

The recent speech made by Jack Straw is instructive here because it reveals a staggering level of arrogance about the value we (as a body of people) place upon the role and purpose of Westminster Parliament. It seems to have completely escaped Jack Straw’s reasoning process that it is not Westminster wielding ultimate sovereignty but the people (as a collective body of opinion) who appoint their representatives to sit in the Commons. Someone needs to forcefully remind Jack Straw that he is a public servant working for the people; Parliament is beholden to the wishes of a sovereign electorate, not the other way round!

It is this hubristic mindset pervading the corridors of Whitehall, which perennially frustrates any realistic opportunities to deliver meaningful reform and advance the process of democratic renewal. The UK’s arcane voting system for Westminster Elections is perhaps a metaphor for this resistance to effective reform.

Perhaps our best hope for real change lies in a balanced outcome; a statistical fluke under FPTP, A.K.A.“A Hung Parliament” in 2009/2010?

The choice is simple. An English Parliament or the Union.

It's the reason that Labour, The Conservatives and the Lib-Dems don't want one. If England is defined it becomes apparent that Britain and Britishness are neither a country nor an identity.

At the moment the fuzzy boundaries between England and Englishness and Britain and Britishness allow the establishment to continue the fiction of unitary state with devolved regions. Make England, "real", and the fiction of unitary British state is obvious.

Devolution has left the functions of the Anglo-British state almost unchanged. An English Parliament which, would mean federalism, would require total change within both Government and Civil Service.

The day England gets a Parliament is the day Scotland gains independence.

Peter D.

1. Not sure what you mean by "elements" but I am not aware of an intrinsically intimate relationship currently existing other than that imposed by current statutes and the London and South East peoples collective wallet.

2. England won't, the UK federal parliament will; no change.

3. I tell you one thing Peter, we certainly won't be asking you to write the pamphlets; I am buggered if I understand this paragraph. (BTW; There is a rule for election prose on leaflets; you have the time it takes to walk from the letterbox to the kitchen bin to get your message into a voter). Other than that, the answer, I think is, "he who pays the piper... etc".

4. Who exactly is going to give us this referendum; and why should they? Words like, Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

Peter,

1. Of course. The separation with the Republic of Ireland was more profound, but there has still been a tradition of free movement, employment rights (including in the Armed Forces), voting rights and so on between the UK and Republic of Ireland. What are you trying to intimate? That Westminster is all that stands between us and all-out Civil War?

3. Ideally a Federal arrangement that ends the second-class nature of English citizenship. Tell me, did you also oppose the Civil Rights marches in Northern Ireland? Why do you find it unacceptable that the English be granted equal status within the Union to that granted in Scotland and Wales?

4. Of course. But we haven't been asked have we, and even suggesting that we should be causes "regionalists" and the like to attack and sneer at us for making this request. And as a proud Yorkshireman I am fully aware that England is not homogenous - but it is far more so than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and you don't have any problem with them getting National Devolution. And it can't be a size thing because Wales in twice the size of Northern Ireland, and Scotland nearly twice the size of Wales. So it can only be Double Standards. Something usually considered a sign of gross hypocrisy...

Peter

1 - as above, an intimate relationship, but not a shared government.

2 - What I'd hope for (and everyone is different). An independent Scotland, Wales and England (NI is a bit controversial for me to comment). England being in EFTA, not the EU. A similar relation to Scotland and Wales as NI has with ROI, bilateral agreements on border crossings and relaxed citizenship laws to recognise our place as historic neighbours and former countrymen sharing a small island.

3 - if we had to have an English parliament within a UK framework. Replacing the House of Lords with a federal second chamber to oversea the relationships between the nations. Probably consisting of both directly elected representatives and representatives from all three parliaments, and covering border controls, military and international relations but little else.

4. Of course. I am a nationalist because I believe it is the fairest and most democratic system of government. As long as it is the English people not UK politicians who get to choose.

"of course England is homogenous: or at least way, way more homogenous than Scotland or Wales "

Where does this myth that England is somehow more homogenous than Scotland come from?

For a start, there's a gaping hole between the north and the south of that country, or Home Counties vs the Rest. A lot of English comedy seems to be directed at people who don't come from the Home Counties, i.e. if they have a Yorkshire/Scouse/West Country accent, it's somehow funny, and they must be inbred/a chav.

The only reason that Scotland appears more fragmented is because its divisions have been so highlighted. Many of the divisions of England have fought one another, and in the early middle ages, they wouldn't have even spoken the same language in some cases.

Ray, you are either new to the English nationalist conversation and are repeating the knee jerk response offered by some on the left: or you have an alternative agenda when you say “…Not to mention the ever growing ethnic variety within England itself, and the inability of some people to consider non-white people English for some unknown reason…The best thing that English nationalists could do is to reclaim their identity from the rabid right.”

We don’t have to reclaim anything from the “rabid right” any more than the Scots or Welsh do. If you can show me one example of the “rabid right” I can show you many more examples that are all embracing.

As for Brown’s Britishness, can you confirm that Britishness lessons are to be taught in Scotland and Wales, as they have been ordered to do in England?. Does the Union flag fly from all public buildings in Scotland, as it has been ordered to do in England?

Alan Beith’s comment would indicate that he belongs to the 32% of people of people that don’t want an EP. So what?

Cornwall should be allowed to go their own way if they want to, it is as simple as that. Whilst we are at it though, maybe we should ask the Shetlands if they want to go their own way, or return to Norway. They’d be quids in if they did.

The abject failure of our political elite to in any way address the question of devolution 'in the round' - tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

Last week's debate on the West Lothian Question in Committee Room 10 at Westminster was an awful exercise in evasion, flannel and body swervery.

Lord Falconer, one of the speakers on the night proclaimed if England got her own parliament, then that would automatically mean the UK would break up into independent states..... He then said, "If England and Scotland became independent, what would happen to all the Scottish people living in England and all the English people living in Scotland?".....

With such a pathetic level of argument - one which would embarrass a 10 year old schoolboy, never mind coming from a supposed heavy government intellect, is it any wonder we have such an abominable camel of a Union settlement?

The Campaign for an English parliament (CEP), is organising and hosting our second national conference on “The Future of England”, which will take place on Saturday April 26th 2008 in the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London, WC1R 4RL. Frank Field MP, Bob Peedle and Geoffrey Littlejohn of the Royal Society of St George, Canon Kenyon Wright and Simon Lee, senior lecturer in politics at Hull University, have agreed to speak. all are welcome. see more details at www.thecep.org.uk

The 'balkanisation' of England is also against Scottish interests for if English regions had parliaments with similar powers to Holyrood it would suggest a status for Scotland equivalent to an English region.

We are now facing a profoundly important phase in the history of the Union. If the unionists cannot satisfy the aspirations of the constituent nations then that failure will lead to the end of the Union. With Gordon Brown and his ilk hostile to further powers for Scotland and any change in England the future of the Union has never looked more fragile.

What about Cornwall?

If the United Kingdom depends on the disappearance of England, then I choose England to remain intact.

England's balkanisation is not for the benefit of the English people (whose existence was denied by Welshman John Prescott). It is intended to disempower the English. Trying to buy off the Scots has failed, the SNP is in power and its vote will increase.

If England is eradicated to be replaced by Euro-regions, and Scotland and Wales then go independent the English will be stateless and powerless, which of course is exactly the plan.

On the front page of the Daily Telegraph today, there is an article "Two Newcastles, one £2.7m mix-up". the second paragraph refers to Newcastle upon Tyne as the "regional capital" of the "North East" (sic). A referendum, in the north east of England returned a resounding "NO" vote to "regional government", I would like to know:

a) When regional government was installed in the north east of England.

b) When Newcastle upon Tyne was made the capital of the north east "region" and,

c) When London was removed as the capital of the whole of England.

This sort of thing, The creep, creep, creep of disinformation, is at the heart of the fight to save England from "Balkanisation". and to gain equality within the UK.

Needless to say I reject much of the narrative contained within this article.

When Peter Facey characterised the debate between “Regionalists” and “English Parliament Campaigners” as sterile he might have been referring to the unproductive nature of its discourse and the tendency amongst some participants to resort to childish name calling and mindless baiting, no doubt intended to elicit equally ill-considered responses. For example, I have been variously labelled in forums discussing this issue as “Prescott’s Monkey Boy” and “A Fanatical Eurofederalist hell bent on abolishing Nations”. I trust I have been largely successful in refraining from this type of futile dialogue.

However, once again we see on display here many of the ill-founded assumptions about English homogeneity lying at the core of bogus claims to an all-England Parliament, representing equality with extant tiers of devolved governance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For the present we will leave aside the (not so small) matter of London within this equation.

Perhaps it is the repetitious nature of these same tired old clichés rendering any subsequent debate meaningless; we just keep going over the same ground, Ad nauseam…..

Therefore, in order to try and stimulate some fresh debate I will limit myself to some, hopefully, succinct and clearly defined questions.

1. Do EP Supporters believe that the current elements making up the United Kingdom, retain now and in the foreseeable future, an intrinsically intimate relationship; YES or NO?

2. If the answer to question 1 is NO, what form of statehood do EP supporters envisage England forging in the next ten years and what mechanisms will England utilise to establish its relationship with both its immediate historical neighbours and the wider International Community?

3. If the answer to question 1 is YES, what kind of UK framework do EP supporters envisage and how might that framework dictate the progress of any informed dialogue through which the constituent elements of the United Kingdom arrive at an equitable and sustainable constitutional settlement?

4. Finally, are EP supporters prepared to accept the will of the English electorate clearly expressed in an informed manner – i.e. a referendum ensuing from the process referred to in question 3; YES or NO?

"Prescott’s Monkey Boy" lol no-one deserves to be called that.

I can't speak for EP supporters as they have a wide variety of views but for myself:

1. YES in the same way that Sweden and Denmark have an "intrinsically intimate relationship".

3. "what kind of UK framework do EP supporters envisage" - not really sure what you mean by framework, but I don't envisage any kind of UK framework in the future.

4. YES. But it would appear that the regionalists would have to say no as the idea has already been democratically rejected in a referendum.

Michael, I think you've misunderstood what Peter Facey was saying - he was saying that merely having an English parliament with the same powers as the Scottish parliament wouldn't resolve England's long-standing centralisation. In fact, you can take that as a given - in North Wales, the fact that people now have to travel to distant Cardiff for surgery instead of Merseyside on the order of the Welsh assembly has been very controversial, and if Wales's assembly is too centralised for a population of 3.6 million....

I think, fundamentally, that English nationalists should press for two things; firstly, that all powers devolved away from Westminster to one contituent country should also be devolved to the rest, i.e. answer the West Lothian Question. Secondly, there should be an English parliament, to administer those affairs which pertain to the whole of England - such as law, sport, and 'integration' of immigrants. Whether, after that, English people choose to stick with their current morbid over-centralisation, or devolve powers to counties and cities, is really up to them. I mean, us.

Oh, and I agree with Acorn itNF - some kind of design of how a federal UK along the lines you propose would work is long overdue. I appreciate that it's supposed to be a bottom-up process, but there's nothing wrong with an example. :)

Michael K. Of all the blog sites on the web that are trying to sell me an English Parliament franchise, I think CEP will be the one I put my money on, if, and only if, you can sell me a complete package .

If the UK is going to become a "federal" organisation then please, let's forget the regional thing in England. It did not sell on the doorstep in the last election and, it won't in the next. Regions are irrelevant to the formation of an English Parliament. They are irrelevant to the voters as well. Here in Hampshire with its regional border with Dorset, we do not throw our beer cans out the car window before we cross back into "our" south east region. The concept of a "regional identity" is totally; utterly a dead parrot.

England, as one of four nations within the federal UK; can quite easily function, at its inception, using the present eighty "Unitary" - County and City - Councils, (they can decide for themselves how they want to structure below that) ,same goes for London. You can perm eight out of eighty County and City boundaries to form the EU regions, plus London, for EU administrative purposes for as long as we are in the bloody thing.

Another thing, 529 MPs for an English Parliament will be far too many, so I for one, want to see your package proposals to cure this problem. If you have an STV voting proposal, even better.

Yet another thing. There is not a hope in hell that you will ever get an English parliament off the ground unless I, and a few million others, can put a cross, against a name, next to a logo (your flag???) on a ballot paper.

“If England and Scotland became independent, what would happen to all the Scottish people living in England and all the English people living in Scotland?"

Not that much. After all, people from the Irish republic regularly visit relatives in England with no trouble, and English people live in the Irish republic. Particularly tax dodging writers!

Alfie; Falconer may have embarrassed a ten year old, but there is a bit of truth in what he says.

If England and Scotland became independent states, there would be the question of who pays the pensions for Scots living in England and vice-versa. An informed source told me today; "...you have no idea just how complicated it would be to separate the four states of the UK - and all the overseas bits you haven't thought of - don't even think of going there..." [expletives deleted].

So, can we agree to a four nation federal UK. The pension problem I think will be on the federal list of jobs to do; perhaps with a federal element of taxation?

Remember the Sustainable Communities Bill? There was a very effective campaign operated throughout the local government network of Councillors, to pass motions for letters of support, to be sent to Ministers. I think there is a chance this same mechanism could be used for an English parliament. Particularly if it strengthens the hand of the Cities and Counties, for more autonomy - the "localism agenda". Likewise, a City/County element of taxation that replaces the hated Council Tax - possible?

I will await a reply from the people at CfEP. But, if the above is starting to look like the US, Federal - State - County model - a system that works quite well - then have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county while we are waiting.

If we are not going to use the ballot box to get an English Parliament, then we will have to use the system as is.

Ray Bell - You are right of course that the different "regions" of England fought each other in the early middle ages. Although that was a long long time ago. I think they spoke different dialects rather than different languages though. Certainly not as different as Gaelic and Lowland Scots. Anyway the point is not how relatively homogenous our nations are, but whether that is relevant to the debate at hand. Should a, largely economic, variance within England preclude an English parliament. I think not. The only homogeneity required, in my mind, is an agreement to accept the outcome of democratic elections.