I'm one of Paul Kingsnorth's English.

Civic nationalism doesn't achieve nothing because it tries to be everything to everyone. I think you are confusing it with Multiculturalism. Civic nationalism doesn't exist in a vacuum anywhere, it is informed by ethnic nationalism, by history, by tradition, by ethnic groups working together. You don't have to conform to particular cultural practices to be part of a civic nation, but that is not the same as saying that there is not a culture in which civic nationalism operates.

At the moment there is no civic nationalism in England because there is no England, politically. There is a cultural English nationalism, and I see signs of it growing year by year, and there is also a growing ethnic nationalism which is fed in part by multiculturalism/immigration. Cultural and ethnic nationalisms obviously overlap, and both are fed, I think, by resentment at the lack of political recognition for England. There's a bunker mentality developing.

The cultural and ethnic nationalisms could be channeled constructively if England had the means of doing so. Paul is a 'cultural nationalist' who supports political self-determination for the nation of England. He hopes that an increased sense of Englishness, and a pride in belonging, will help reverse the trend towards homogeneity and globalisation of our culture. What he terms the 'Battle Against the Bland'.

If difference is to be cherished, if difference is what makes England England, then the preservation of English heritage, traditions and the quirks of Englishness that make England different should make us all English nationalists regardless of our political leanings.

The title of the article asks if it's OK to be an English nationalist. It is, but the content seems to suggest that's *not* OK not to be an English nationalist. The only thing keeping English people from being happy nats is self-loathing; apparently, one can't be a healthy, actualised internationalist or humanist.

A progressive English nationalism would be a welcome thing. At the moment people like myself may well be put off because English nationalism so often seems reactionary and backward-looking

If by reactionary you mean that it is a reaction to injustice - the democratic deficit and the loss of identity caused by the diminution of Britishness; then yes it is reactionary. Devolution is the cause and English nationalism is the effect.

If you mean Reactionary as in inherently conservative then you are wrong. UKIP, whose policy is the abolition of the devolved parliaments, are Reactionary. But they are not representative of contemporary English nationalism.

Plainly I mean the second.

Are the English Democrats representative perhaps?

At the moment people like myself may well be put off because English nationalism so often seems reactionary and backward-looking (it usually involves being anti-EU, anti-immigration etc).

There seem to be be a fair few left English nationalists out there. Perhaps they need to be more organized.

I think they're certainly more representative than UKIP. But not representative.

I'm not, and have never been, an English Democrat - they are too right wing for me, personally, and I'm about as English nationalist as they come. I don't think English nationalism is one thing that can just be catagorised as reactionary, or categorised at all for that matter. As Tom says there are left-wing English nationalists out there.

If you're looking for a large pool of representative English nationalists then I think the Conservative Party rank and file is probably a good port of call, or the membership of the National Trust. Of course the Tories don't address it but that's for what they see as good political reasons.

Some good scaremongering from Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.

I'm not saying that English nationalism is _necessarily_ reactionary. What I meant was that the organisations and individuals who profess it often are. I don't know about the National Trust but the Tories, who you say are perhaps the most representative (paradoxically, given they're staunchly unionist), are right-wing. That's was why I mentioned immigration and the EU. It seems that if you're a Welsh or Scottish nationalist, you're against one Union but for another; but if you're an English nationalist, you're against both!

You say the Tories are staunchly Unionist but in polls on the attitudes of members of political parties it's Conservative voters that want an English parliament and who feel more English than they do British.

Labour and the Lib Dems feel more British, which to me is reactionary and backward looking, like Gordon Brown.

The Englishness of the Conservative Party could well be decisive in the way things pan out. It's all very well for people on the Left to sit smugly throwing insults at English nationalists while promoting a progressive pluralist Britishness (which is shorthand for British nationalism) but you may wake up the morning after the general election and find that your the lumpen mass of your British constituency is gone, and now thinks of itself as English (this will happen, it's just a case of how quickly).

It's long been my belief that the left have been content to leave Englishness to be shaped by the right - possibly malevolent forces on the right - because such a policy is self-fulfilling and enables them to proclaim Britishness as the inclusive pluralist umbrella identity (except in Scotland and Wales of course).

It's bollocks. Completely short-sighted, hypocritical, prejudiced and downright dangerous.

So don't complain to me that English nationalism is right-wing if you on the left aren't prepared to defend English interests against Celtic and British nationalisms.

The people who are at the vanguard of English nationalism may well be reactionary (not that I particularly agree with you or Marquand on that - I think British Labourites are reactionary centrists desperately trying to keep a lid on progressive nationalism) in your eyes but not in theirs.

I think the point Paul is making is that you ought to get on the winning side, engage with English nationalism or let the sand run through your fingers and then have it kicked in your face by the reactionary right-wing racists that are bound to rule the country if English nationalists get their way.

One of the things that is most distinctive - most defining - of Englishness is precisely the will to be different: different from the rest of Europe; different from Britain, even though Britain has in reality been the proxy-English state; defying narrow categorisation and delimitation in political, cultural, ethnic or indeed national terms.

For somebody of my school of thought, to define Englishness in relation to difference - a definition I don't demur from - is a deeply significant and ambiguous thing to do. 'Difference' also implies 'deferral': a sort of never-ending lack or delay in (self-)presence, meaning there can be no representation of Englishness that is fully true, accurate and present to its object (Englishness). There is therefore (by definition) no definitive - defining - statement of what it is to be English. Hence, the impression that to be English is to be uncertain of what it is that makes us so; or, projected backwards in time, to feel one has lost something but not to know what it is / was (because it was perhaps never there; the England that was lost having always already been different / deferred).

But, by the same token, this does not mean that Englishness, and England, does not exist: it exists, precisely, within this alienation from formal political, civic and national in-statement: the sense that, though the country might belong to us, control over its destiny, or our arrival at the destination we desire ('our' England), is beyond our grasp. Taking grasp of this - the people of England deciding to take control over their own destiny, in political terms - would / will be, then, a truly defining moment of history, in both senses of the terms: one in which, from being beyond definition, England makes at once a political and existential leap - decides to become a nation and a people, in a sense for the first time - shaking off the mantle of Britishness through which that self-presence has been deferred. But this will involve having the courage to actually define what kind of country we want to be - secular, Christian, progressive, liberal, European, multi-cultural - in a 'definitive' manner; and no longer to be only the England that can't be pinned down to a set of formally shared and publicly celebrated values, whatever they might be.

We might lose something of our elusive, all-things-to-all-men Englishness, at that point; but we'll (re)gain an England. 'Narrow' nationalism is in this sense a necessary narrowing down of what we mean by / and mean to be English; the better to ensure we can fight to preserve it.

David, aka Britology Watch

Gareth, I'm unclear from your comments. You seem to think that I'm a British nationalist Labour supporter. I can assure you, I'm neither. Truth be told I don't really _feel_ any special loyalty to either identity, although I accept that this might change were I to spend a prolonged period abroad and I can certainly understand why many people do feel passionately about it.

You'll notice from my initial comments that I was thinking in purely tactical terms: what I want is democracy. I'm certainly not about to go around telling people what identities they should and shouldn't feel and I'm sceptical about Brown's Britishness project for this reason (although I do think a statement of values might have other uses).

And, yes, I accept, "reactionariness" is in the eye of the beholder. But, to be fair, although the English Democrats (who are, let's remember, the only political party running on an English nationalist platform) wouldn't describe themselves as reactionary, a lot of people would!

Sorry if I've mislabelled you Guy. I'm not a member of any party and I don't subscribe to any particular political philosophy, and truth be told I find it impossible to say whether I am left or right wing (a mixture of both, or neither)...So I find it rather tiresome that over the last ten years, having arrived at English nationalism by default, as a reaction, to be continually pigeon-holed as reactionary or right-wing, or even extremist, by dint of the fact that I am an English nationalist and want for my country what practically all other nations take for granted.

It's why I welcome articles such as this by Paul Kingsnorth, a person whose tragectory I've followed over a number of years and whose politics I appreciate (even if he does affiliate with the Left which I find hard to do).

As an young Englishman at Edinburgh University watching devolution unfold it was The English Question that got me into politics, insofar as I can describe what I do as being in politics.

I joined the CEP not because I saw them as fellow reactionaries or right-wing extremists, but because they were the only people out there actually doing anything.

I ask you: Where were (are) the Left?

Which is exactly what Paul Kingsnorth is doing, and if you have no answer then it's fairly churlish to complain about the lack of a progressive English nationalism.

Unfortunately everything on the CEP blog has been erased but I did spend a lot of time criticising the ethnic nationalist groups (this resulted in a rather unflattering article on me on the BNP website, along with threats) and promoting the case for an inclusive civic nationalism (some of these are still on my blog). This doesn't make me 'progressive' it just makes me me; I wouldn't describe myself as particularly 'progressive' but I'm not reactionary either. Like many English people I have a certain inertia born of respect for tradition but that's not the same as being rectionary - tradition is not intrinsically worthy.

My hope for the future of the CEP is that we will attract more people on the Left who can help us construct a progressive case for English nationalism. However, I think it's more likely that the Left will not overcome their suspicion of English nationalism and we will win by default (much as Fraser Nelson says in the Spectator, or as I have said earlier on this very blog). In the end it's results that I am interested in so it doesn't matter that much to me whether the English get home rule through pressure from progressive or reactionary forces, or a combination of both - I have enough faith in the people of England to believe that home rule for England will be a positive and benign event with no particular political ideology (apart from democracy) holding sway.

I don't want want the mainstream left and centre left to become English nationalists, but I do want them to engage with Englishness in the same way that their cousins in Scotland and Wales have engaged with what it means to be Welsh and Scottish.

I would like to hear more politicians and opinion formers articulating there pride in being English and in so doing help define what it is and what it will be. I am proud of where my family comes from, of being English, British and European. Traditional nationalism (whether British or English) would have me choose which one was more important, whereas for me they are all important.

With all this talk of geo-political entities under various labels, let's not lose sight of the fact that pride in one's community per se is a virtuous goal on itself.

Paul Kingsnorth outlines pervasive community decline (which I think most people are already well acquainted with) and cites English Nationalism as a potential panacea to this widespread problem.

I am tempted to ask what special properties English Nationalism boasts not also inherent with other more localised forms of civic affinity?

I shun recognition of England as a vehicle of distinct political identity not because I reject the notion of having pride in my particular locality, quite the contrary, I am very conscious of my Mancunian roots.

I argue against England as a unit of political power precisely because I believe it will NOT solve the issues of community decline described by the author. Indeed I argue that it will actually make matters worse for communities in the English peripheries by perputuating the same endemic culture of centralism we see in the current UK Westminster model.

Bang on form there Peter.

"I argue against England as a unit of political power precisely because I believe it will NOT solve the issues of community decline described by the author. Indeed I argue that it will actually make matters worse for communities in the English peripheries by perputuating the same endemic culture of centralism we see in the current UK Westminster model."

Sigh - same old argument. Now I'm going to make this really, really simple for you:

Post UK and EU unions, an independent England will have English Tax revenue to spend on... England.

It's a simple principle - English taxes for England. That's all England including wherever you think the "English peripheries" are.

Incidentally I don't regard "English Nationalism" or independence as a panacea (more like a very, large tonic). There will have to be a reckoning for all those decades of out of control borrowing and spending which will make life harder rather than easier for a while.

Just one more thing - Manchester is actually in England you know.

Manchester is - Manchester, England. Not Manchester EU region 63.

This response of Jon Bright's to Paul Kingsnorth I think is typical of the left and why people on the left find it so hard to admit they feel any affinity with the country they 'happen to find themselves in' the country called ENGLAND. Is Jon Bright one of Kingsnorth's English? Only he can answer that. This kind of phony deconstructionism, what do we mean by English? Bright's ironic tone of a people lost (and by implication pathetic) among the chain stores could apply to individuals of any nation who feel the unnatural pressures of the global homogenizer. Let's reconstruct. A people whose exact ethnicity remains controversial (in common with those of other nations) and irrelevant except to the BNP, a geographical place, a history, a culture, a language, a nation evolved under the common law, the reformation, the bill of rights, democratic constitutional monachy, and now coming to terms with their guilt over empire right alongside people whose forebears were the victims of that empire, trying to find their place in the world again. These are Kingsnorth's English. And many of them including myself have always voted Labour. What has all this to do with the multicultural Kings or Old Kent Road? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. All people from ethnic minorities need to know is that they are welcome to join this process. Neither do they need to join it to remain citizens even of an independent England. It is entirely up to them. However I feel they have joined the process already simply from being here. Civic English nationalism is about reclaiming for England the important cultural insitutions that belong to us and not to 'New Britain PLC'. It is not about the right to morris dance.

@Wyrdtimes

Sigh - same old argument. Now I’m going to make this really, really simple for you:

Manchester is in a peripheral Region (in both the UK and England). Using any credible measure of social and economic prosperity you care to mention, the Region of North West England (which is where Manchester was located last time like I looked) in tandem with other peripheral English Regions (Yorks-Humber, North East) fares significantly worse than its more affluent cousin in South-East England.

These measures, such as life expectancy, children living in relative poverty, propensity to suffer from serious ill-health, housing standards, income potential, etc. etc. combine to illustrate the harsh disparities between different parts of England - you know that entity you keep banging on about as though it was uniform and indivisible.

These are the issues that ordinary people are actually interested in, not some faux vision of English cultural homogeneity propagated as a populist, Trojan horse vehicle for installing yet another centralised bureaucracy in London, with a different name on the door outside, to perpetuate the same malign set of policies.

The idea that my taxes will miraculously, under an English Parliament, be allocated more generously towards Manchester and its Regional environs is completely false and misleading (and you know it).

I lived in Manchester for ten years (love the place) and the idea that Manchester is on the periphery of England is ludicrous!

Have you not seen the T-shirt: "and on the eighth day... God created Manchester"?

The Mancunians I know regard Manchester as England's second city, well those that don’t regard it as the capital! Nonsense of course, we all know that's Birmingham.

The fact that the British Government regards anywhere outside Scotland, London, Wales or Northern Ireland as the funding periphery speaks nothing of English nationalists and everything of Scot run Big British Government.

"The idea that my taxes will miraculously, under an English Parliament, be allocated more generously towards Manchester and its Regional environs is completely false and misleading (and you know it)"

I know it? If I "knew" that - why the hell would I have just said the complete opposite? I’m not a politician.

I do believe that Manchester would be better off as part of an independent England just as I believe that all other areas of England will be better off too. And when I say better off I am talking about the things you mentioned i.e. life expectancy, addressing child poverty, standards of housing etc.

English taxes. For England. Not a panacea, but a tonic so good it would make even you smile Peter.

I certainly think Paul makes a compelling case and it's good to see he's provoked some heated debate. Is progressive English nationalism an idea whose time has come? I look forward to continuing the debate when we publish a review of Paul's book, soon.

Guy

"the Region of North West England (which is where Manchester was located last time like I looked)"

Funny that, I thought that most Mancunians called their "region" Lancashire?

@Wyrdtimes: "I lived in Manchester for ten years (love the place) and the idea that Manchester is on the periphery of England is ludicrous!"

Next time you're in London (assuming you don't actually live there), make some time to visit the recently refurbished St. Pancras Eurostar hub; a marvel of Victorian engineering reborn for a new century. When you are looking up admiring the span of the arches supporting the new glass roof, consider for a moment the more than £6billion of UK taxpayers money (that I helped to contribute to!) used to bankroll the construction of the CTRL plus the £800 million more spent on the fantastic new edifice before your eyes.

Then deliberate on the broken promise, as mandated in the Channel Tunnel Treaty signed all those years ago by Mrs. T and Francois Mitterand, to provide within a specified period (long since passed) after the opening of the cross channel link, direct rail services from an array of provincial UK cities to the continental mainland.

Finally you might like to reflect on the complete absence of high-speed rail connections (now and for the foreseeable future) in the UK anywhere outside the South-East/London nexus of power.

When you've done all that – come back and tell me again that the idea of Manchester as a peripheral city is ludicrous!

Mancunians (like me) are very proud of our city and our history but as far as UK government policy is concerned Manchester nearly always gets the sh**ty end of the stick!

Please don't even bother trying to convince me this situation would change significantly under an English Parliament!

Manchester might even be the location of an English parliament.

David

Now you really are in fantasy land

I note that once again only the English are expected to justify their existance. People like the author are all too happy to accept discussion of the Scots, Irish, Catalans from a position of ignorance it seems.

Over romanticised ideas of identity? Fine but why limit them to 'illusiory pubs' and not to heather clad glens or wearing checked skirts whose history largely goes back to some Victorian romantic revival or going on about languages that died out years ago?

Peter and Wyrdtimes - Manchester is England's second city! Birmingham is just bigger.

Peter - an English parliament will not necessarily solve the problems of centralisation, but neither will it hinder them anymore than the current situation. The money you mention spent in London has a Barnett consequential meaning money flows to Scotland, Wales and NI as a result. It is viewed as English spending which is clearly ridiculous. Without the distractions of S,W,NI maybe we could decide on a fair system of funding for England.

While it is all well and good to aim to distribute money from London, London and the SE are the only regions (no capital please!) that are net contributors to the exchequer I believe. Regional financial independence would only reduce the flow of money from London.

One answer would be for county level needs assesment (across England or the UK). Then if one 'region' or nation ended up with more money we'd know it was needs based. Plus decisions would be made at a level relevent to the services provided.

Or more financial independence and an acceptance that would mean more money for richer areas, but also more accountability.

Peter - I feel your pain.

But it's not just Manchester that gets the "sh**ty end of the stick". England as a whole gets the Brown end.

Not surprising really - there's no dedicated body looking out for England or the English as a whole - unlike the situation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

"Please don’t even bother trying to convince me this situation would change significantly under an English Parliament!"

I know I shouldn't bother trying to convince you... but your beginning to come over like child with hands clamped over ears going "naaah naaah naaah I can't hear you."

You seem to be suffering from a severe case of premature certainty regarding an English Parliament. You're certain that it would change nothing for the better regarding investment and regeneration - I believe the opposite. I believe that's exactly what an English Parliament would exist for.

I also think in an English taxes for England scenario - there would be more money to invest EVERYWHERE in England and not just the big cities.

As for the location of an EP I think it should have no fixed abode. It could move every few years. Talk about bringing government closer to the people.

Peter, You say I'm in fantasy land when I say Manchester could be the location of an EP. Well, no; my real fantasy would be if it was somewhere like Liverpool or Nottingham. And actually, as a long-in-the-tooth southerner, I'd resent the Mancs having it, to be honest.

But seriously, there are lots of supporters within the CEP and among Eng nats generally for locating the EP outside of London. It would be a vital thing to do, in my opinion.

David, aka Britology Watch

A progressive English Independence party committed to decentralization within England and with a realistic approach to Europe perhaps?

As an aside I asked a while ago 'is there room in Cornwall for a right wing Cornish nationalist party?' pro hunt, eurosceptic, duchy royalist, tough on immigration, low taxation etc It would certainly scoop up a few UKIP votes.

However the idea died a death which was actually quite reassuring.

"Manchester might even be the location of an English parliament."

Funny, I always thought that Manchester would be a more central location for an English parliament. Geographically anyway. But I can't see it happen. If and when England becomes independent, it may well realise that there is a big fat hog gobbling up all its food, and it's called London.

I always thought Manchester, or Liverpool, would be a more central location for the United Kingdom Parliament.

Whether London or some other city became the location of an English parliament - speculation within speculation - would probably depend on whether one or more of the main parties decided to 'own' the cause, and a cosy deal was done to keep it in London. Which is another reason why it would be in the best interests of the parties to take on the idea now, so they can direct the process (even in ways some of us wouldn't be particularly happy about) and try to limit the potential of an EP to 'undermine the Union' and - possibly fatally - erode the sovereignty of the Union parliament to which they are so attached.

David, aka Britology Watch

What is progressive ? What is reactionary? Do not those who consider themselves progressive also consider themselves morally superior to thoss they consider reactionary?Suerly power should be devolved to the lowest form of organisation which is ideally the parish council( at least in the ountryside). Anti EU feeling is in part a result of power slipping away further and further from people. Ask the fisherman of SW England what they think about EU Fishing Policy. As many people either have to work longer hours or spend more time commuting actually coming face to face with a councillor or MP becomes ever more difficult. One American said the purest form of democracy was the small town meeting.

Does not the dea of English MPs deciding upon English only matters start the long overdue process of reducing the over centralisation of powers both In Britain and the EU. Increasingly politics becomes the activity of those who have the time to devote to it and not those who have experience and wish to serve.

One of the most common words used in Magna Carta is reason. What is reasonable about Scottish MPs voting on measure which only effect English voters? Is not democratic government about Government of the people, by the people, for the people?

Guy: "Is progressive English nationalism an idea whose time has come?"

I'll believe it when I see it. The problem with people that style themselves as 'progressive' is that they still seem to feel the need to apologise for being English, or they sneer at nationalism.

This presents something of a difficulty for 'progressive English nationalism'.

As this video shows Nick Griffin is not afraid to stand up and argue England's corner, even if his vision of England is warped. Groups like the CEP offer an alternative inclusive version of Englishness, in opposition to the BNP, but they are belittled and dismissed as reactionary by progressives - like Marquand - who then proceed to do sweet FA (I don't mean to single out Marquand, 'Progressive Patriot' by Billy Bragg is pointless too). Progressives talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

My advice to progressives would be stop talking and agonising over things and get off your arses and actually do something. Engage with England for the sake of England or leave it to the racist BNP or the reactionary CEP.

An English Parliament should be held in Leeds or Manchester. One aim would be to help develop business outside London and the home counties. Part of the problem is that the UK is run by the London chatterati. Common sense based upon practical experience, a result of industrial expertise would help to solve many of our problems.

"Anti EU feeling is in part a result of power slipping away further and further from people. Ask the fisherman of SW England what they think about EU Fishing Policy"

Its funny you should say that because it was Westminster who sold off our fishing quota for benefits for the cities financial industry.

If we have a low quota its because London didn't care.