"I never met anyone who called themselves 'English' before I lived down South."

Had you never lived in England before or met any English people then?

I've heard people spout this English = Southern stuff before. No idea what kind of world they live in. A 'see no evil one' maybe. There are opinion polls showing northerners as being more likely to say they're proud to be English than southerners. But English identity is unacceptable so apparently we're to be told we don't feel we're English and would rather split the country in two and go off with the Scots and the Welsh. Actually often we don't but it's what those suggesting the split and saying English = southern want so our opinions are magically remade to fit those.

Perry Anderson draws attention to this long tradition of intervening in other countries when he writes.

"At the same time, the English Nobility of the Middle Ages was as fully militarised and predatory a class as any in Europe: indeed it distinguished itself among its counterparts by the scope and constancy of its external aggression. No other feudal aristocracy of the later medieval epoch ranged so far and freely, as a whole order, from its territorial base. The repeated ravages of France during the Hundred Year War were the most spectacular feats of this militarism: but Scotland and Flanders, the Rhineland and Navarre, Portugal and Castile, were also traversed by armed expeditions from England in the 14th Cent. English knights fought abroad from the Forth to the Ebro in this age." [Lineages of the Absolutist State, page 116]

He does not see this as indicating a particular trait in the English character; he locates the reason for it in the structure of the Medieval English State, where the monarchy, as the central authority, enjoyed greater control than pertained in other states. But he notes that this led to a tradition of involvement in foreign conflict that influenced later developments.

I think there is a difference in attitudes in the component parts of the UK. Attitudes towards the Falkland’s War illustrated this. I remember in the British press there was an invoking of the age of Elizabeth I and it is noteworthy that there was very little support for this war in Scotland.

Alex Buchan

The thing is that English regionalism is absolutely necessary for such local democracy, to create balance between the myriad locales and counties on the one hand and the central English parliament on the others.

If you missed out the intermediate regions then not only would you have a more centralised level of gov't doing some thing it need not do, anathema to a decentralist and believer in true subsidiary(and anyone who knows how good gov't should be.) like myself, but it would a lop-sided initiative with not a enough balance and likely end up with an overbearing central gov't or perhaps less likely but possibly a chaotic affair of too independent and autonomous locales and counties.

Oh and I take offense at the Saxon revivalist nonsense. I'm a Wessex regionalist and I have seen little of that. We are simply people who care about our little part of England. Don't get me wrong I love my county; Dorset, and locale perhaps a little greater but after them it is Wessex and then England and I know that Wessex will be essential to any decent, decentralised change in England.

Regionalism should not be an alternative to an English Parliament running English affairs. Breaking England up is simply anathema to most, and is seen as a means to undermine the English voice in the UK.

Not to mention its the desired ideal for the Celtic states, a weak and divided England, easy to set one 'region' against another and abuse the lot for their own interests.

There is an argument for the SHIREs (to hell with 'counties', Shires have been around for 1000years) to work with each other on regional issues. But fixed formal structures could actualy be a impediment, if they limit that cooperation.

Now I hear that the likes of Danemark and Sweden have devolved a lot of power down to the equivilent of a Shire, with some positive results. Regionalism would be more like the German Lander.

As a Dorsetshire lad, and a Wessex man myself I must remind you it took southern steel to unite England in the first place, and that without it there would be no England by now.

"Regionalism should not be an alternative to an English Parliament running English affairs. Breaking England up is simply anathema to most, and is seen as a means to undermine the English voice in the UK."

Local affairs should mostly be a local concern, county affairs mostly a county concern. This will require regionalism because otherwise there will not be balance. You will either have too chaotic a situation with the locales and counties having too much autonomy and not enough cohesion or you will get the more likely situation of the central gov't being able to divide and conquer the locales and counties and any hope of real decentralism and localism will not come about.

Saying it is anathema to most is unsupported, it is not on most people's radar.

It certainly would not require breaking England up, I'm a patriotic Englishmen for one --I'm simply more patriotic towards Wessex and Dorset however, and it could be achieved by still giving England a united voice in any UK gov't and not to mention its own gov't.

They also better serve the needs of real subsidiarity and accountability, because some things do need a higher level than a county or locale but not a national level and they will be closer to the people than an national gov't would.

Now I'm an avid decentralism I don't think a lot is required of the English gov't and less of any UK one.

"Not to mention its the desired ideal for the Celtic states, a weak and divided England, easy to set one 'region' against another and abuse the lot for their own interests. "

I think this is an overly hostile attitude that has precious little basis in fact. Not only would many regions be more wealthy and populace than these Celtic nations but such a policy could easily be countered in any reformed, regionalised UK. In fact I'd say Scotland and Wales themselves could be regionalised as well.

"There is an argument for the SHIREs (to hell with 'counties', Shires have been around for 1000years) to work with each other on regional issues. But fixed formal structures could actualy be a impediment, if they limit that cooperation. "

However such structures also create that fixed arena which any central gov't would have to come up against and give some power to these regions if any locales or counties are getting too self-interested and anarchic. They can also attract loyalty far better than any floating system.

"Now I hear that the likes of Danemark and Sweden have devolved a lot of power down to the equivilent of a Shire, with some positive results. Regionalism would be more like the German Lander. "

Denmark is pretty much the equivalent of a couple of these regions at most. It would probably gain from a few regions of its own but it has less need of that intermediate layer to balance things out because of its size.

I don't agree, Shire based government used to work just fine, and with the proper architecture to the Union as a whole does not need anything intermediate with an English Parliament. Which would be the proper forum for nationwide decisions.

It worked on the whole since it was instituted during the process of English Unification. But 'Regional' government tended to want to pull away from central authority. What checks on that would you put in place and how effective would they be?

Attracting loyalty is a powerful and dangerous thing to do, I would rather not have Wessex in competition with Northumbria or Mercia. It could divide England if successful.

"I don't agree, Shire based government used to work just fine, and with the proper architecture to the Union as a whole does not need anything intermediate with an English Parliament. Which would be the proper forum for nationwide decisions."

County based gov't hasn't been around for centuries and when it was it was a very different. It would not work fine, you would have either chaos or more likely a quickly overbearing central gov't. How do you expect counties and locales to stand up to the central gov't and yet not completely lack cohesion. I can't but think you don't particularly want a lot of decentrlaism/localism. If that is true then we are bound to differ on this.

"It worked on the whole since it was instituted during the process of English Unification."

During that period, there were powerful earls of pretty much the regions we want who had a lot of authority. If the earls of Northumbria and Merica had got off their backsides in 1066 then they might of been able to push William back into the sea.

"But 'Regional' government tended to want to pull away from central authority. What checks on that would you put in place and how effective would they be? "

You always have such. Look at America, they felt the that with the articles of confederation the states had too much power and autonomy but with the constitution, even with the best efforts, they have not been able to stop the steady march of federal usurpation. You are always walking a tight-rope.

The beauty of regionalism is the extra little bit of balance. It better prevents the central gov't overawing the counties and locales because the regions are more powerful and better at standing up to it, but it will be kept in line by the counties better because they are more powerful when going up against it as when they go up against the central gov't. However the closer relationships between the counties in a region should help add some cohesion and minimise the risk of too much autonomy to the counties and locales, as should the position of the regional gov't which would be better placed to deal with them and keep them in-line.

Well I don't think a whole lot needs to be done at the central level of England or the UK beyond the usual foreign affairs and defence sort of stuff. The regions would have little need to pull away from central authority. The regions are however numerous and diverse enough to keep each other somewhat in-line at least, none overawes the others.

Perhaps we just have different idea of the level of decentralism that is best.

"Attracting loyalty is a powerful and dangerous thing to do, I would rather not have Wessex in competition with Northumbria or Mercia. It could divide England if successful. "

I doubt it, it could happen but if the set up is well planned it is unlikely. English identity and institutions would be maintained although I don't for one think an upsurge in local, county and regional patriotism is a bad thing, England is too big a nation not to have its patriotism tampered by such, to give it some decent roots and stop the growth of abstract jingoism.

We are certainly bound to disagree that is clear.

There was a lot more power at Shire level less than 100 years ago, indeed even 60 years ago than now. I see nothing wrong with that and little argument to take powers down only to regional level.

England is not too large a state in size or population, I disgree with that completely.

The Federal concept is one applicable the UK, how Scotland will subordinate power down is their concern.

And your missreading history. Canute reestablished the old kingdoms under the guise of super-earldoms, precisely to rule the country more easily and to be able to set on against the other. It lead to the rule of Edward the Confessor via Harefoot and Finehair.

Edwin and Morcar sat around arguing who should lead after Harold fell. Too much power in too few hands, ruling over too large a division of the realm lead to inaction when they where divided. A larger number of earls as had existed before Canute would've seen action since it woudl overcome that personnal and regional division.

 As for the idea loyalties are not powerful emotions that can produce strong actions, I have no idea where one might get such a notion.

 Now make sense of what you've said, since this looks rather odd to me and I need translation.

"How do you expect counties and locales to stand up to the central gov't and yet not completely lack cohesion."

"We are certainly bound to disagree that is clear.

There was a lot more power at Shire level less than 100 years ago, indeed even 60 years ago than now. I see nothing wrong with that and little argument to take powers down only to regional level.

England is not too large a state in size or population, I disgree with that completely."

I agree, I want a lot more power level at shire level and local level. I'm quite the decentralist, I probably want a lot more than you've even envisioned. I certainly don't want to only take powers down to the regional level, I'd take as many powers as can possibly, decently exist there to the lowest level possible. England however is probably too large to be balanced with 38 counties(I've deducted Cornwall.) on one-side and a central gov't on the other. That is why regions are required. They both help to keep the counties in line without surrendering too much power to the central gov't which they also help to keep at bay.

Plus we haven't dealt with the idea of subsidiarity. I'm an ardent decentralist and believe in a very cautious and conservative subsidiarity that only surrenders power and control when absolutely necessary. There are simply tasks that can't be done by counties but don't require a central gov't to do them and with the other advantages of regional authorities I think this becomes an excellent argument for them.

"And your missreading history. Canute reestablished the old kingdoms under the guise of super-earldoms, precisely to rule the country more easily and to be able to set on against the other. It lead to the rule of Edward the Confessor via Harefoot and Finehair.

Edwin and Morcar sat around arguing who should lead after Harold fell. Too much power in too few hands, ruling over too large a division of the realm lead to inaction when they where divided. A larger number of earls as had existed before Canute would've seen action since it woudl overcome that personnal and regional division. "

No it was you who brought up the history.

I don't think it is particularly applicable to the current situation. Morcar and Edwin could have resisted William better than if there was no unification in the North but the situations weere very different. Canute nor them had a constitutional system of semi-autonomous regions with semi-autonomous counties within them, it is in the end hard to compare lackey earls to such or even to earls whose families have long ruled the area and feel themselves not just lackeys of a particular monarch. One cannot say compare the aristocracy built up by Napoleon with the ancient nobility of the sword.

"As for the idea loyalties are not powerful emotions that can produce strong actions, I have no idea where one might get such a notion. "

I don't disagree. I'm saying that I see no need for loyalty to Wessex to say completely destroy loyalty to England. England would be the nation, it would have the monarchy and the church and let's not forget the football team. It might not always be an easy ride but it seems better than the alternative.

Then perhaps it is possible for us to come to some agreement here?

However while I did indeed bring up history, I said you had missread it, not that you had brought it up.

Now let us ask the question, would you have permanent sitting regional Parliaments with seperately elected MRPs?

Or would you reuse MPs from an English Parliament having them sit for some time at a regional level?

"Then perhaps it is possible for us to come to some agreement here?

However while I did indeed bring up history, I said you had missread it, not that you had brought it up. "

And I showed that you misread my apparent misreading. ;)

An appointed earl is not an hereditary earl who is not a constitutionally semi-autonomous region.

"Now let us ask the question, would you have permanent sitting regional Parliaments with seperately elected MRPs?

Or would you reuse MPs from an English Parliament having them sit for some time at a regional level? "

I'm not sure I'd have a parliament at the English or British level. I certainly would not at the British level. For England I'm unsure but it is, as has been mentioned in these debates, about 85% of Britain so you will still have the same centralised, corruption and unaccountable power but I couldn't give constitutional specifics. I might have an assembly or something. The key would giving them just enough power to help keep the regions in line where necessary, and do the few important things that need to be done at that level but preventing even gradual usurpation as happened even in the US's early history(as compared with the quite quick usurpation after the civil war.).

What I'd have at the regional level as well I'm unsure of, as I said I more for local and county decentralisation and regionalism is more for constitutional balance. I'd certainly have county assemblies. I'd probably repeat something similar, but with less power at the regional level.

England would the chief ceremonial level, and perhaps Britain for some things, though. The monarch would be for England(or perhaps Britain.), the established church would still be for England, the major international football team would still be England and so on.

Federalism.

You realise that it was this greater-england nationalism of the Anglo-Brits and Tory establishment that led to the reclassification of Cornwall from Duchy and British territory to simple English county. In doing so they've had to brush our constitution under the carpet and resist all expressions of Cornish national identity.

Who knows, if this Anglo-British steam roller had had more power, and,
had the conditions been right, perhaps Wales and even Scotland might
have suffered the same fate. The British/Great Britain/UK tags (smoke
screens) would simply have been dropped and today we'd all by citizens
of a state called England that stretched from Lands End to John o'
Groats.

I accept your point, I am thinking more of how they are perceived, especially in Scotland and perhaps in England. Thatcher would have been seen by many as someone who stood up for England, given that England and Britain during her time was seen as interchangeable. As I say, devolution has made this blurring of distinctions more difficult. The same could equally be said of Mundel. He may genuinely think he is a Scottish patriot furthering Scotland’s interests by having her on the world stage as a junior partner. This is, after all, the argument used by Labour, Tory and Lib Dem politicians in Scotland, that independence would consign Scotland to a backwater of insignificance. Drawing on your reference to projecting England into the wider world, one could say of these Tory state nationalists that see themselves as the decedents of Drake and Raleigh. They see no rupture between the pre and post union state, how could they when this is enshrined in the long tradition of Anglo-British exceptionalism. It is the ‘Bank of England’, it is ‘Queen Elisabeth II’, the debate around the speaker showed that parliament sees itself as the English Parliament continuing i.e. we all live in England continuing. It’s not due to a fault of their own that English people see England and Britain as the same, this is what they are supposed to think. My point is that this is central to what provides popular legitimacy for the British political system, it is not optional. David Cameron, as Prime Minister, can’t just bring in a Federal Constitution, even if he wanted to, without undermining this. He would have to take the risk that, lacking genuine popular affections, a non-exceptional Britain i.e. a Britain shorn of its mystique of greatness may hold no attraction for the different nationalities of these islands.

Alex Buchan

Perception is everything, and its true that the Anglo-British will, for the most part, be acting in the interests of England.  But they do now have to act differently in Scotland and Wales, change their language and points of reference; as you say "devolution queered the pitch".

Traditionally England has had far less cause for complaint against the Union due to England's dominance of that Union.  But there are signs that the English are restless.  Whether the Anglo-British will have to start 'putting out more flags' to be seen to be more English (as opposed to British), and start speaking of England (as opposed to Britain), are the interesting questions, and how they reconcile English nationalism with Unionism. 

We've already see tantalising signs, with the English flag having been spotted fluttering above Downing Street, and on David Cameron's bike, on Jacqui Smith's car, and during Boris Johnson's campaign.  The BBC too has started to get wise to the Britologists (see here and here).  Control language and you control thought.

The FIFA World Cup will be an interesting test of how far the Anglo-Brits will go in mirroring the populism of Englishness, and if in doing so they help to undermine the popular legitimacy of the British state (which relies far more heavily on English acceptance than it does on Scottish or Welsh).

The Britologists (but not the Anglo-British) will pull out all the stops to ensure that the 2012 Olympics are as passionately British as the World Cup support is passionately English.  This really is a very important battle for them, and at the moment it is one that they are losing.

If English MPs start producing websites as nationalistic as David Mundell's then I think it won't be long before we call time on the Union.

Thanks for the links. It is amazing, though, that we can count on one hand the number of times the BBC actually reflects the truth rather than playing a part in perpetuating the Anglo-British/Britologist line. It might be relied on in Iran, but the BBC is not a disinterested player back home.

I say Anglo-British/Britologist because I do not see them as greatly different. The Tories say ‘England’ in an almost unconscious at-homeness with the narrative of the golden thread of English history. Labour’s use of Britain when they mean England is, on the other hand, the verbal expression of their core belief in the union and their refusal to accept that the legislation they enacted has undermined that union [Labour in the past has also been just as Anglo-British as the Tories]. But both use obfuscation when it comes to talking about the true nature of the British State. Cameron is as guilty of this as Brown, although he is more skilful.

I don’t think the emergence of a popular English nationalism is welcomed by any of them. It is only pressure from below that has forced them to appear to be responsive. Your own efforts in this regard have been significant. I would be very wary of the Tories. Their natural inclination is to string things along in the hope that a return to Great British uniqueness/greatness wins out against a more normal European national identity politics in England. They are likely to try to co-opt English sporting allegiance and the St George’s Cross flag as new ornaments to add another element to this British uniqueness/greatness.

On the West Lothian question I think they will play it by ear, only acting if they sense there is a head of steam, and then only minimally. I think you’re wrong about the Olympics. The Anglo-Brits are just as keen for it to be a festival of Britishness as the Britologists. The Tories are even more committed to the continuation of greatness than Labour, for them Britain the monarchy and the army are all wrapped up together, at least that’s how it comes across.

I liked the quote from J.B.Priestley. People like him speak of a deeper truth that transcends place even though it is deeply rooted in place.

Alex Buchan

This is precisely my point. This kind of thing isn’t an aberration it flows directly from the exceptionalism that is the hallmark of the pre-modern British constitution. Nor does it pose problems for Scottish Unionists, instead it perpetuates the myth of greatness which lies at the heart of this ideology: that Britain is an overarching ‘Great Nation’. For English Tories there is no need to flaunt Englishness because Englishness is seen as indistinguishable from Britishness. This is also why they wouldn’t want to make this distinction, because having Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only adds to England’s sense of greatness if no distinction is made between England and Britain. They are, in a disguised way, English Nationalist, and were widely seen to be until devolution queered the pitch.

Alex Buchan

Except, of course, the syndrome has been stood on its head under New Labour: now the establishment says 'Britain' when it means England. The Britologists have taken over from the Anglo-Brits. Whether the return of the Tories will see a return of Anglo-Britishness is perhaps a more interesting question than the nature and degree of their support for devolved government.

The Tories may not be as ideologically committed to the suppression of a distinct English identity as New Labour; however, in practice, they're going to be faced with the same problem of how to refer to English matters as English without letting the incongruity of the present dual-purpose nature of Parliament and government (UK-wide and England-only) become too glaringly obvious, which will further fuel the demands for an England-only parliament of some sort. However, they're in a double bind: if they replicate New Labour's Brit-speak and don't properly address the West Lothian and English Questions, or reform the Barnett Formula, the anger and mistrust of the English towards the present system will only increase.

Better to honestly confront the issue now, and come up with a political and constitutional solution that recognises that England and Britain are two distinct communities.

I get the point you are trying to make.

In one sense the Anglo-British and the Britologists are the same.  They are both State Nationalists.

The Anglo-British see English and British as much the same thing if they even think about it at all, whilst the Britology tautologists (people like Gordon Brown, Michael Wills and Jack Straw) are extremely conscious of the difference between England and Britain and so deliberately ignore England completely.

The Anglo-British might mistakenly say England when they mean Britain, whilst the Britologists will deliberately say Britain when the mean England (or use vague non-specific terms such as 'this country' or 'our country'). 

Cameron seems to have adopted most, if not all, of Blair's annoying phrases (things like "I honestly believe" and "y'know" and "I will say this") so it's entirely conceivable that he has taken onboard the Britishness doublethink of New Labour.