Talk:English nationalism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

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]

Part of English nationalism is the failure to separate Englsih and British as terms. Recently I was asked (at a conference of historians no less!) 'Why do so many Scottish people not want to be part of England nowadays?' ¬¬¬¬docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.224.62 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 October 2007

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]

From my understanding of British and English history, the Act of Union 1543 incorporated the Principality of Wales and the Welsh March into the Kingdom of England, and then the Act of Union 1707 incorporated Scottish representitives into the English Parliament. With over 529 English constituencies, Westminister still fully represents the English Parliament of old. With only 59 Scottish constituencies, 40 Welsh constituecies, and 18 Northern Irish constituencies, even if these non-English constituencies voted en mass on issues that pertained exclusively to England, the numerical surperiority of English representitives nullifies their votes. The idea that England needs another parliament to me represents a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the broad influence already inheret for English representitives. There is conflict inherit between a British and English identity, because 'British' identity is very much wrapped up in an English identity, in the same way as the UK parliament is in essence the English parliament with others tossed in. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:51, 19 August 2008 (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 don�t 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 hasn�t 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)

Some care should be taken with the term 'subsidy'. Spending per head of population is ostensibly higher in Scotland than in some parts of England - chiefly the Northeast and the Southwest, however Scotland contributes more per head to the treasury than most regions of England. The 'higher spending' is, however, open to question in itself. Scotland 's 'share' of public spending as identified by politicians includes various 'national' spending obligations. This includes defence, which is perfectly reasonable, though there is a strong argument that Scottish defence needs are very much smaller (proportioanltely) than those of the UK. However these 'national' obligations also include Scoptland's 'share' of thing like the Crown Prosecution Service despite the fact that Scots already pay for their own Procurator Fiscal system. Curiously, we do not hear much about heavily subsidised region of England, most noticeably London adn the Southeast. The high employment in LOndon and the Southeast is largely a product of the concentration of civil service and defence jobs, not of genuine economic productivity. The most economically productive region of Britain is probably the West Midlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.224.62 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 October 2007

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I agree, go for it - there's useful information at Constitutional status of Cornwall. I gaurantee that this will cause a stink with other editors though.Good luck! Mammal4 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I have really no time for a huge debate with other editors. :-( And then I'd also better register as an en: Wikipedian, which was not really my plan... Hopefully you won't see me as a coward now... I just wanted to point out something that seemed quite obvious to me. Is there no Cornishman here to help? Bab from the eo: wp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.26.77 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


However well-meaning a discussion of English Nationalism (which I support) may prove to be, as long as it continues to incorporate the Duchy of Cornwall it can only ever be identified as English Imperialism. If Britain is to survive as a political entity, it needs to have a completely radical re-think on peoples' rights and equitable political arrangements. -- TGG 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some text regarding the "Cornish question" and the following links of English political groups who recognise Kernow's status:-


Try and keep it civil, or if you can't manage not to pepper your comments with insults then please don't contribute - this is not the place for ranting, or (I suspect)trollingMammal4 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop a big bomb on Cornwall, clear the corpses and re-populate the land - repeat with Scotland, Wales and southern Ireland. Haha, only joking.  ;) 194.193.170.84 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following text:- Many in Cornwall would welcome an independent England provided the 'Cornish question' was addressed and Cornwall was afforded some form of self-governance along the lines of a Cornish Assembly.

Trust me, Cornwall is part of England, has allways been part of England, will allways be part of England, there is no reason why they would want independence. And if it is so they can run their county the way they want, then they should just become an annomynous province —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Heritage Alliance

Added the link below, replacing an older broken link.Bretagne 44 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

Where do I begin...?

English nationalism is the name given to a nationalist political movement in England that demands self-government for England, via a devolved English Parliament. Some English nationalists go further, and seek the re-establishment of an independent sovereign state of England, via the dissolution of the United Kingdom.

Well there isn't really a single formal movement. "English nationalism" can incorporate many things - as well as the campaigns for a devolved Parliament and/or independence, the term is also used for those seeking adjustments to the way MPs can vote at Westminster, plus culturally for the growth in the sense of Englishness - are demands for St George's Day to be a public holiday, or even just celebrated on a par with St Patrick's Day, "English nationalism"? What about "the rebirth of England" that's been noticed, particularly the more widespread flying of the flag of St George, when in the past the Union Jack would have sufficed? Or even just the growth of feelings of "Englishness" as something distinct from sloppily named Britishness?

The English nationalist movement has its roots in a perception amongst many people in England that they are English, rather than (or merely before) being British.

This is mixing up the concepts of ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. Much of the political demands seem to be driven by civic events and the English Democrats have run candidates born outside England, rejecting the ethnic nationalist viewpoint.

It is interesting to note that most English nationalist groups and parties are on the 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.

Not so interesting to the extent that English nationalism has been fueled by a backlash against a perceived "Scottish" Labour Party. Scottish Nationalism was originally found on both the right and left, but the SNP went down a left-wing route when the Conservatives were in power across the UK, though still has right-wing pro independence support. Although there are exceptions, mainstream left-wingers have less grievances with the Labour government.

The apparent aversion to the European Union by English nationalist groups stems from their belief that England is being subdivided into regions at the behest of the European Union.

Which is a strange assumption to make because Euroscepticism in the UK predates formal regionalisation and if anything should encourage Unionism against the UK being sub-divided, not a desire the cut things up differently. (Euroscepticism can also be found in Scotland see Scottish Executive: Attitudes Towards the European Union and the Challenges in Communicating 'Europe': Building a Bridge Between Europe and its Citizens - Evidence Review Paper Two, especially "It is often believed that within the UK, Scotland is one of the most pro-European areas. The evidence within this review suggests that on the whole this is not the case, with people in Scotland reporting broadly similar Eurosceptic views as people in Britain as a whole.") Euroscepticism is a complex subject but stems largely from a belief that Europe is not the UK/England's natural sphere of interest. Culturally it has as much to do with influences from the US, Australia and the like all pulling on attention.

There's little about the effect of sport when this is one of the times England roars (or whimpers) as England. Because the Home Nations play as separate teams, sport is often divisive and prone to encouraging an outbreak of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish or Northern Irish (depending on the sport) sentiments. (One particular issue is with regards to which team is supported in a tournament by fans whose own team doesn't qualify. Since in football it's usually England qualifying and Scotland not, this tends to provoke English anger when Scots support a different team, or just whoever's playing England, but the English have not recently had the chance to demonstrate who they will support in the reverse scenario.) Scottish nationalist politician Jim Sillars once dubbed the Scots "90 minute patriots" because of the way enthusiasm for Scottish football didn't translate into support for Scottish nationalism and the same may be true for England, although it's yet to be fully tested.

As for the "what is the extent of England" question, Cornwall doesn't often feature one way or another in English nationalist demands, but Monmouthshire is still claimed by some English nationalists (the English Democrats stood in the relevant seats in the last Welsh Assembly election, calling for a referendum on its status). I'm not at all sure where Berwick-upon-Tweed fits in, although nationalists seem rather more vocal about "reclaiming" territory than voluntarily initiating the return of territory.

I'd have a go at redoing this article but frankly it needs a huge overhaul not a tinker. Maybe start by moving this to something more specifically dedicated to the calls for English devolution, and have a new article on the wider issue of English nationalism, both politically and culturally? Timrollpickering 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cep logo.GIF

Image:Cep logo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Bushell

He ran in the last election for the English republican party. He lost, so it doesn't need much addition to this article, but is that incident worth writing about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteoriK (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall is a part of England

Can we have the Cornish nationalist propaganda removed from this article please? It's biased anc claims a united point of view that a/ Cornish people have a united position on an English Parliament and b/ All Cornish people see themselves as not English. SOME people in Cornwall may want Cornish devolution, but so do some people in Devon. It's no different to any other part of England wanting more local devolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.175.133 (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall was once a seperate country in the "Breton" era. The claim of the cornish to independence, while possibly cynical, has some ancient merit, and therefore is relevant. I'm not cornish myself, but if that sentiment exists enough for one to write the Cornish part, then it's not necessarily a rarity. Perhaps it should be rephrased, rather than completely removed. There currently exists a drive to revive the cornish language and get it recognised as a minority language (if they can ever finally agree how to spell it in the latin alphabet). There are approximately 600 speakers of the language, although they are split into three groups over the spelling issue.
--MeteoriK (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect the 'Cornish question' should not be overlooked - if English independence (an English parliament) were achieved any new constitutional arrangements would have to take into account Cornwall's nationhood. In 1998 Cornwall was recognised by the UK Government as having "distinct cultural and historical factors reflecting a Celtic background". By 2001 Cornwall had demonstrated the largest expression of popular support for devolved power in the whole of the United Kingdom and possibly Europe with a 50,000 petition to Downing St for a Cornish Assembly, (with the support of all five Lib Dem Cornish MPs) - no where else in the English regions has there been anywhere near this kind of support for devolution/ more autonomy. In Cornwall, 44% of those asked said they felt Cornish, rather than English or British (BBC News 2004). “Smaller minorities also have equally proud visions of themselves as irreducibly Welsh, Irish, Manx or Cornish. These identities are distinctly national in ways which proud people from Yorkshire, much less proud people from Berkshire will never know. Any new constitutional settlement which ignores these factors will be built on uneven ground.” (The Guardian, editorial, 8th May 1990)Touvier (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a link to it in the section, but I see no reason why a schismatic tendency in a one part of England deserves a section of its own, particularly when there is very little dialogue between cornish and English nationalists. There is practically nothing to put in the section. BillMasen (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


England should have indepence, end of!

Give England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland independence, everyone wants it, so why arent we getting it? I could understand why Scotland and wales would want to stay in the Uk, because they wouldnt have enough money to become independent. But England would become much richer and much better of as an independent state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by commenter: Ireland got their independence, look how successful they became!! 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) The oft-repeated claim that England subsidises Scotland does not bear critical analysis, particularly in terms of Barmett (see above). The whole of the UK subsidises London and the South-East, but I don't notice much about that in the London-based newspapers. There is no reason in the world why England should not become an independent nation, but if there were an English independence movement of any note would it be legitimate to describe them as 'separatists'? This is the term applied to Scottish and Welsh nationalists, so should we refer to the Labour/Conservative/LibDem parties as 'colonialist'? None of these groups have done much for the benefit of Wales or Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.118.144 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland has both Grangemouth and the north sea gas/oil reserves, it is also the home of several large engineering companies. Edinburgh is a large source of Tourism for the UK as are the highlands. Several British achievements come from Scotland: the docks at Clydeside, TV, Tarmac, scientific advancements from Maxwell, the philosophy of David Hume, the Literature of Robert Louis Stevenson and Sir Walter Scott, the Grand Theft Auto game series. So saying that Scotland wouldn't have the money to become independent is pretty rediculous considering how much it contributes to the UK, both now and in the past. If the UK was to seperate including the companies and resources in it, England would suffer more than Scotland. I'm sure similar arguments could be made for Wales, Northern Ireland and Corwall.

National Anthems, etc

It is noteworthy in the context of this article that whilst Scotland and Wales have their own National Anthems, England does not, and currently uses the British one. This sort of thing adds to the perception in some uninformed circles that England and Britain are the same. Millbanks (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the "English anthem" is quite interesting. While the English national football team uses God Save the Queen, England at the Commonwealth Games uses Land of Hope and Glory. Aridd (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did English nationalism exist before 1994?

This article desperately needs a historical perspective. Surely nationalism played a central role in the invention of Englishness (in the medieval period?)? And its (re?)invention under the Tudors from the 1530s? This article gives the unmistakable impression that English nationalism is a recent phenomenon. I'd really like to know how English nationalism and the invention of Englishness have been related to each other since the medieval period. Who was the first person to die for England, for a nationalist idea? And so forth. The modern stuff should properly be but a footnote in this huge history. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have made a start by adding some examples of historical English nationalism.--Johnbull (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is biased

This is a very biased article due to it's title and it's relationaship to other similar articles. Scottish Independence is the name of the Scottish Independence article so why should the English and Welsh (Which I am also tagging) articles be labeled with "Nationalism" rather than "Indepence" which would cover a broader spectrum of political viewpoints. It seems the title was used to express the negative association with "Nationalism" and thus trying to degarde the idea that England (and Wales...etc...) should have political representation as distinct nations. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the articles should have uniform titles, but what is the negative association with "Nationalism"? SomeRandomAssKlown (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC and England.

I have asked the BBC, why they have 'regions' that include BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, BBC Northern Ireland. There is no BBC England. The BBC told me it's due to the fact that England is so much larger. But,it seems to me the BBC have 'Regionlised' England along the same lines as the EU wanted too do. Considering England has the larger population, then why is it ignored by the BBC? (For example BBC news readers wearing a Thistle on St Andrew's day, a Daffodil on St David's day, and no symbol at all on St George's day). On the same subject the BBC broadcast a programme entitled 'The History of Scotland'. They told me that there are no plans to broadcast a similar programme about England.80.195.38.188 (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to have a rant about the BBC, get over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was the excellent A History of Britain of course though! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophobia

There is a dispute at Anglophobia, your input would be appreciated. BillMasen (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English are teutonic

It's pitiful that the Teutonists continue to appropriate Englishness for themselves and broker no disagreement. What of national characteristics dating from antiquity? All of England's traditions in that, are wiped by Victorian cultural revisionism. It is a fact that King Arthur was the greatest English hero, for centuries preceding the Welsh Tudors, but the usual suspects like to muck that up for their own purposes. The English descend primarily from the most Roman parts of Britain, in contrast to the Welsh, who were those people from the hinterland and less part of the Continental nexus. Just look at the provincial maps of Roman Britain and you'll see the borders between England and Wales in their infancy. Even preceding the Roman infrastructure, Belgae and Parisii of Gaul were obviously different from the "native" Britons, but the folk and archaelogical history attests to previous Greek and even Phoenician elements in those areas closest to France. Most of this article suffers via anti-Norman polemics, rather than objective research into the holistic nature of Englishness, which is not encapsulated within a very small space and time continuum by which all Englishness is measured! The very name "English" has less to do with the Angles and even less to do with the Saxons, but the dedication of the people to Catholic Christianity, by which they were blessed by the Pope for being like "Angels". This is obviously a prejudice the English would hope to keep, for the Welsh insult of "Saxon" does nothing good for PR, as the Scots or Picts and Saxons were the same intervening foreigners then in Vortigern's time, as they were in the Stuart and Hanoverian period. Propaganda exposed. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English comes from the saxon word AEnglisc not angels. We are not the same as the welsh, scottish or irish, they are celts, wereas we are a collection of various (mostly germanic) peoples hense our obvious cultural differences. You try to accuse English nationalists of making up the truth yet we could say the same about you unionists who are at the moment using wikipedia to promote your ridiculous Anglophobic remake of historical fact.English Bobby (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England is a mixture of Celtic/Germanic peoples just as Scotland/Ireland/Wales are. I believe the highest percentage of Germanic gene types in England was only around 50%. I have no idea what the average is but it obviously can't be that much if the highest is only half. Scotland on average has about 62% Celtic genes. The rest being Norse/Germanic. So there is no great genetic difference between the peoples of the British Isles. Besides Northern Celtic/Germanic peoples genes are near identical anyway ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace image with this one

I think the image used should be replaced with one similiar to this (but of higher quality) or altered as to show cornwall within England as some cornish nationalists dont conisder it a 'true' part of England. I dont think this image should be used but I use it here to demonstrate what i would like the image used on this page to look like.

Eopsid (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is a modern phenomenon

An expert on nationalism should read and correct this article. It seems most of the article is about pre-19th century history. Considering the fact that nationalism (any nationalism, not just English) didn't exist before the 19th century, that is certainly quite strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is a whole lot older than that; even if one limits Nationalism to the concept of a State only containing one distinct People. The modern concept of Nation states is obviously primarily an idea of the 19th century, but that does not equal Nationalism in all its forms as being from the 19th century. Dylansmrjones (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of scholars of nationalism would disagree with you. They consider nationalism a phenomenon of modernity, of the 19th century and onwards. What you had before that is drastically different from nationalism because it was only with nationalism that you got ideas of popular sovereignty and the turning of the people as a whole into a political subject.

I recommend that you look at other Wikipedia pages about nationalism, such as French nationalism, Greek nationalism, Turkish nationalism, etc, and you'll see why this page is so problematic.

Justice and Reason (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of English Democrats (not EDP), English nationalists and view on Cornwall

The following snip does not seem to be supported by the quoted source: there is an inherent incompatibility between many forms of English nationalism and Cornish nationalism, since Cornwall is seen by some English nationalists as being an integral part of England. While the section 5 of the constitution for the English Democrats does mention Cornwall as a part of South West England (alongside Devon, Somerset, Dorset Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Isle of Scilly, Gibraltar (also including Bristol, Avon)) it is only in relation to the election of members to ED's National Council. And not necessarily a political statement of what ED defines as England. OTOH, they do mention Monmouthshire as part of England, but then again, the status of Monmouthshire is a part of their political Manifesto, while there is nothing on Cornwall in their Manifesto. So we cannot based on the source safely conclude that ED considers Cornwall to be an integral part of England, and that they are opposed to Cornish independence. I think we need a better source. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:English_nationalism"