Talk:English nationalism

Takes a Cornish man to get the ball rolling, tut!

Added the following link

Bretagne 44 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This sentiment is especially strong in regard to the attempt by Tony Blair's Labour government to balkanise England through regionalisation. Balkanise is pejorative and judgemental, it should be changed. Bretagne 44 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not even close to neutral: "most English people still regard their nation to be a country in its own right and not merely a constituent part of the United Kingdom. This sentiment is especially strong in regard to the attempt by Tony Blair's Labour government to regionalise England."

Most? I think most English will just as happily cheer a GB team at the olympics as an England team at the World Cup. The claim that 'most English people still regard their nation to be a country' has no more validity that a claim that most English people really couldn't give a damn. There is an interesting an lively debate going on about English identity - which has little to do with regional programmes - and such sweeping generalisation do not even attempt to reflect it. Icundell 21:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Union

England hasn't had a Parliament since the Act of Union 1707, rather than those of 1536 and 1543. Between 1543 and 1707, England had a Parliament, but England also covered an area not within the romantic nationalist idea of England (i.e. Wales). Bastin8 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Large text added on 3 March

An anonymous user added a large chunk of text, supposedly coming from someone to do with the CEP. Altough clearly far from neutral, there may well be some useful stuff there. It is, however, 5 past 1 in the morning, and I can't be bothered checking it now. For the record then, I've dumped the text here; if anyone thinks they garner anything of substance from it, feel free. Robdurbar 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text Removed From Article

Nationalists are people that claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis of the state and that each nation is entitled to its own state. It is a fundamental belief, and the axis around which the world's politics revolve. Those that claim it is not a fundamental belief are usually people who have their own political agenda, and who wish to see supra- or multi-national states formed from pre-existing nations. In time these multi-national states either become nations themselves, or fail, as we have witnessed in the cases of Yugoslavia, USSR and India, to name a few.

But the issue is more complex than that. "Nation" can mean one of two things; an ethnic nation, based on a common ethnicity, collective identity and culture; or a nation based on shared purpose, beliefs and common goals, usually founded on such principles as democracy and individualism. In most nations though, or at least for most people in most nations, nationalism is a mixture of both these forms.

Academics refer to nationalism based around these two alternative definitions of "nation" as "Ethic Nationalism" and "Civic Nationalism". In the West, especially in multicultural nations, it is the commonly held view that only civic nationalism is acceptable. The USA and France are often held up as examples of nations based on civic nationalism as both nations were founded on constitutions expressing common rights and privileges, and the principle of citizenship. Although, from an ethical standpoint, civic nationalism is preferable to ethnic nationalism (in multicultural states at least) the Los Angeles and Paris riots show that neither ideology is without its faults.

It could be said that Britain is an example of a state based on civic nationalism. After-all, we are a multi-ethnic and multi-national state, and, for all intents and purposes, a unitary nation with a shared purpose and equal constitutional rights for all. Or at least we were prior to 1998.

In 1998 Scotland became a nation apart, able to influence English and Welsh legislation, but spared from political interference from Wales, and, more importantly, from England and the English. Scottish nationalism was, and still is, a hybrid of civic and ethnic nationalism, but the path to independence - temporarily stalled by devolution - was driven mostly by ethnic nationalism and a deep-rooted pathological hatred of the English. The Scots define themselves not as what they are, but as what they are not; and what they are not is Sassenachs.

When Scotland ring-fenced its legislation to prevent English interference, and when UK politicians started speaking of Scotland as "a proud historic nation" (Tony Blair) and stating that "Scotland is a nation in its own right" (Nick Raynsford - Labour Regions spokesman) without making similar claims on behalf of England, any sense of a shared collective purpose, for me at least, disappeared. Since that time politicians - most notably Gordon Brown - have invested a great deal of energy in trying to redefine Britain in terms of ideals that unite us and a shared collective purpose.

At the same time there has been an assault on English nationalism, with the Labour Party appealing to the Conservative Party to make devolution to Scotland work by not fanning the flames of English nationalism. Ostensibly Scottish nationalism is a civic nationalism, and Welsh nationalism too, otherwise the UK Government would have had trouble justifying it; and to their credit the SNP and Plaid Cymru are signed up to the European Free Alliance, a nationalist alliance that promotes civic, as opposed to ethnic, nationalism, and which supports all nations in their quest for self-determination. But the UK Government did not allow England the same right to self-determination as it offered Wales and Scotland in their 1997 referendums.

Last month Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, writing in anticipation of an English Ashes triumph in her Independent column, complained that "If the cricket is won, many more white Britons will give up on Britain and take refuge in England". The implication being that English nationalism is purely an ethnic nationalism based on skin colour (see The England Project).

Alibhai-Brown was followed by Vince Cable MP, in his Demos pamphlet on multiple identities, who compared English nationalists to Islamic fundamentalists and white supremacists by stating that "The threat to harmonious social relations in Britain comes from those who insist that multiple identity is not possible: white supremacists, English nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists".

It should be remembered that both Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Vince Cable are nationalists themselves: civic British nationalists.

Vince Cable went on to say "This is the opposition and they have to be confronted. An important element in that confrontation is the assertion of a sense of Britishness".

As someone that counts himself as an English nationalist - a civic nationalist - I was offended by these remarks and responded to Alibhai-Brown and Cable (see The Green Ribbon) in the same knee-jerk way that they no doubt made their remarks. Having had time to cool down and reflect I am still offended by their remarks, and see them as politically motivated, but I concede that they are at least partly correct.

Where they are correct is in the fact that, at the moment, English nationalism is mostly an ethnic nationalism. Immigrants that come to England are informed that they are now British, and they are. "British" is not an ethnicity, Britain is a political construct that incorporates the different nations and ethnicities, and in that sense it can be argued that Britain was multi-cultural before the waves of immigration that began with the Empire Windrush.

The problem for English nationalists like myself, is that for all our best intentions - arguing for an English parliament that represents all English people regardless of ethnicity - there is no civic nationalism in England, not for immigrants, not for anybody. We English have no collective political representation that allows for an expression of our collective political will, and many or most of our cultural and civic institutions have been appropriated for Britain. Scotland has a Scottish parliament to which all Scots, regardless of ethnicity, elect their Scottish representatives. The Scots also have a National Library of Scotland, a National Portrait Gallery and a National Gallery, and much else besides. Taken apart these things mean little, but taken together an immigrant to Scotland - and I lived there myself for five years - is left in little doubt as to what nation they are in. Minority ethnicities in Scotland are much more likely to prefix their ethnicity with "Scottish" than ethnic minorities in England are inclined to prefix their ethnicity with "English". In fact ethnic minorities in England almost always refer to themselves as "British-[insert ethnicity here]". It makes sense as that is how the Government defines them. This fact annoys me greatly, and I think it is divisive and damaging to race-relations in England, but that said I donï¿½t blame the immigrants I blame the political establishment and the race-relations industry.

Without any form of civic nationalism the English seem only to be able to express themselves through sporting tribalism and xenophobia. That is a sweeping statement, but it seems to be the widely held opinion of what Orwell referred to as English intellectuals, particularly those on the left. The Government's steadfast refusal to allow or build any form of English civic nationalism has created a situation where English pride is exhibited in moments of pure tribalism; St George's Day and sporting victories are the only times that England's flag can be waved without accusations of racism. This is wrong, the English flag should fly above the English National Library, the English National Museum, the English Portrait Gallery and, YES, the English Parliament and Executive. Only in that way can we build a civic nationalism for England in which all can take pride. The Government are culpable in making 'English' a synonym for 'Anglo-Saxon' and in being so they have played into the hands of what Vince Cable refers to as 'white supremacists', which - by the way Vince - is not a synonym for "English nationalist".

"English" cannot any longer be permitted to be solely an ethnic description, it must embody more than that. The absurdity of Tebbit's cricket test is plain for all to see:

A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are? Immigrants to England cannot be informed they are British and then implored to support the English cricket team. Why should they when they are British not English? Why should they take any note of England's history or achievements prior to the Act of Union when Britain and their adopted "Britishness" came into being? The sense of Englishness is growing, it has been well documented, and a divide is opening up in England between that part of society that define themselves as English and those that don't. It is noticeable that those that don't are overwhelmingly from non-white sections of the population, although it is also noticeable, and encouraging, that some blacks do refer to themselves as English. I think that this black-led revelation has come about through inclusion in English sport; it certainly hasnï¿½t come about thanks to the race-relations industry or Government; both of whom constantly seek to define them as Black-British, and whose very policies exclude them from Englishness.

The 'Death of Britain' has also been widely documented - Hitchens, 1999; Heffer, 1999; Redwood, 1999; Marr, 2000; Nairn, 2000 - but it doesn't have to be that way. We can all be British citizens with equal political and constitutional rights within Britain, and with a democratic say in the way our own nations are run; that is the only way that it can work, the British onion cannot be put back together; Welsh, Scottish and English nationalism are all out of their own halves and running towards the opposition's unguarded goal. The only guard against a certain goal is in creating an inclusive civic nationalism not just for Britain, but for England, Scotland and Wales. And that's the task that faces British nationalists like Vince Cable and Alibhai-Brown if they want a civic and civil Britain. Trying to keep the English from asserting their Englishness all the while talking down English nationalism as if it were any less valid or worthy than Scottish, Welsh or British nationalism is simply no longer an option.

The freedoms bequeathed by England to the United Kingdom, guaranteed by law, represented an exceptional method of social integration, 'the most civilized and the most effective method ever invented by mankind' (1948: 476; 489-90). This method of social integration translated a specific aspect of the English political tradition - parliamentary sovereignty - into a British one in order to secure the unity of the United Kingdom (Crick 1991). This made the development of a specifically English nationalism not only counter-productive but also irrelevant (Crick 1995). This has been usually interpreted as an expression of English arrogance. The opposite reading can also be made and it is possible to interpret it as an expression of English modesty, for what is often ignored is the attraction of English civilisation as a method of social integration. In the mid-nineteenth century even one of the stalwarts of the proud Edinburgh Review was prepared to declare that 'the nearer we (the Scots) can propose to make ourselves to England the better' (cited in Massie 2002: 13). Moreover, its method of social integration was also here a method of multi-national integration. England, while remaining England, 'a concrete reference' for poets, in a real sense also became Britain, as its economy drew in the Irish, Scots and Welsh. As an 'absorptive patria', there was no need to base Englishness on blood or soil or even a flag and 'flying the Cross of St George was a protest or a foible, usually Socialist or Anglican' (Grainger 1986: 53-5). The good fortune of this social and national integration relied in large measure upon the relatively stable identity that England gave to England/Britain (Stapleton 1999). The United Kingdom was a nationality not a nation, one that had taught 'its citizens at one and the same time to glory both in the name of Scotsmen or Welshmen or Englishmen and in the name of Britons.' (Barker 1928: 17). --- Arthur Aughey We need to glory again in the name of Scotsmen or Welshmen or Englishmen and in the name of Britons, but in a multi-racial society we can only do this through fostering a sense of civic nationalism and pride in our collective and separate identities. Text removed from aritcle by - Robdurbar 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and i note with what hypocrisy the English nationalists ignore the Cornish Nation.

For the last time, Cornwall is not a country, it is a Duchy. Check the Cornwall article if you like. You might have a nice flag but facts are facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.7.144 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anyway i have added two new links.

Bretagne 44 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing

Added the following:

It is interesting to note that most English nationalist groups and parties are on the right or extreme right of the political spectrum often being "euro sceptic" at the same time. This contrasts with the "Celtic" nationalist movements in the UK which tend towards a centre left pro-European stance.

A point worth noting as it does contrast with the other regional nationalist movements.

I have also replaced the links to some english nationalist groups that were removed without explination.Bretagne 44 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a link farm and this is not a page for every single English independence group; I've removed those that don't have their own domain etc. and are just opinion pages. A point worth noting, perhaps, though completely unverified and pure opinion? --Robdurbar 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett Formula

This can probably be attributed to the reliance on subsidies in the "Celtic" regions of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall which are paid out of English taxes via the Barnett Formula. As independent nations Scotland, Wales and Cornwall would rely heavily on foreign aid

I don't think Cornwall is part of the Barnett Formula, in fact I'm sure it isn't. There's no mention of Cornwall in the Barnett formula article, and I'm also sure that Cornwall makes an annual financial loss out of being part of England. What verification does anyone have for the statement that Scotland, Wales and Cornwall would rely heavily on foreign aid? None, I suspect. Bretonbanquet 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bunged this through google, and this is a quote from the first page that came out Hansard

Ms Atherton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the people of Cornwall should contribute to the Welsh Barnett formula when the GDP of Wales is higher than Cornwall's?

Adam Price: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Lady: I want to scrap the Barnett formula. It should have been scrapped 20 years ago; it should have lasted for only a year. It does not deliver to my nation, to her nation or to many of England's regions. It should be scrapped and replaced by a needs-based formula, irrespective of the Government's final proposals on regional economic policy. [1]

I'm not sure if that answers the question or not - I wasn't even aware of this issue until I saw your comment Mammal4 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that should read paid out of British taxes and not English taxes or don't people in Cornwall, Wales etc pay taxes to the exchequer? Am I missing a trick? Mammal4 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you learn something new every day - thanks for that. It still seems a little odd though - it should surely read "British taxes" as you say. Maybe someone who is more of a specialist than I can educate us further. Does this mean that Cornish people contribute to the Welsh Barnett formula alongside the rest of England? Bretonbanquet 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall

Do the English nationalists want Cornwall to be a part of an independent England? Or do they/some of them sympathise with their Cornish nationalist brethren, supporting a free England that does not include Cornwall?

An independent England including Cornwall could possibly make thing even harder for Cornish secessionists, so if that's the aim of the English nationalists, I guess that Cornish nationalists would actually oppose a free England! :-)

I think Cornwall should be marked on the map somehow, perhaps in orange or red brown, to indicate that many feel it is not really a part of England.

Bab from the eo: wp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In my experience the majority of English people are completely unaware of Cornwall's unique status within the UK, and are completely ignorant of the history of the situation. Most do not see Cornwall as different or unique in any way from other English counties, or at the very most give it status akin to Yorkshire (i.e strong local identity, but still English) The most common reactions are either to view it as a sort of joke - rather like suggesting that Lambeth secede from the UK, or agression. Mammal4 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, shouldn't this tricky situation at least be mentioned in an article that seemingly describes a possible joint secession of England+Cornwall? Bab from the eo: wp