Rejoin is the last, best hope of unionism

The man who brought us Brexit, and is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, keeps on telling us he plans to keep the country together.

It is somewhat of a reach to suggest the rather hard (let's call it "medium rare") Brexit he is going for now is compatible with the continuation of our Union.

In 2014 Better Together ran a campaign to keep Scotland in the Union which featured continued EU membership as one of the benefits of voting "No" in that year's independence referendum.

Not only does that make it rather awkward to suggest Scotland shouldn't now re-run that referendum (the entire constitutional basis has, after all, changed) it also seems likely that the Better Together campaign considered this a useful policy in winning over the wavering undecided voters to their side.

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland will be in a different customs area to Great Britain come Brexit. Scotland's latest polling suggests support of independence outweighs support for the Union and the nationalists are making EU membership a massive issue around which to build momentum for their referendum.

So it really does seem quite outrageous to think you can swivel from Brexiting to keeping the Union together.

Meanwhile a number of English Brexiteers (polling is... lacking) would rather happily see the back of Scotland (leave it a few days for the EU/Scotland love-in to abate then search "bye Scotland" on Twitter for example).

And so it seems clear that unionists, those who value the United Kingdom and who consider themselves British, need to try to find a way to keep our country together. Rejoining the EU is that way.

There's a caveat here: I don't think we will rejoin the EU anytime soon. The point is though that, as a unionist, I see that as the only plan that works. If done quickly enough it will take the wing out of the growing nationalist movements in Scotland and Northern Ireland and possibly swing some voters back to supporting the Union.

This is so unlikely as to be delusional. I'm not here to try to suggest the impossible is possible even though I think the impossible is the only solution.

However rejoin, as a long term goal, is the unionist "insurance plan". If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the Union it seems almost certain both will end up, relatively quickly, in the EU in some way. If we are to keep our "family of nations" close together we can't do that unless we too are in the EU. We wouldn't be one sovereign nation any more. Yet we'd still be "Better Together" with the structure of the wider European Union. So this unionist, credentials available throughout the many posts on this blog, won't give up on rejoin. No matter how unlikely a goal it is. No matter how distant a goal it is. It'll be worth the fight.

Abraham Lincoln On Union

I've determined once and for all to finish Shelby Foote's amazing "Civil War: A Narrative". Starting at the beginning again means I've already gotten to take in the magnificent language of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address. Though said in much different circumstances I feel some parts reverberate strongly in the run up to this year's independence referendum in Scotland.

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?" 

and

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Making My Peace With Nationalism

Ugh. It is "St George's Day" yet again.

This blog was, once upon a time, created more as a reaction to nationalism than anything else. I know that is hard to imagine as I moan about marriage equality so often now, but yes indeed the posts I actually received the most response on (including being invited to speak at conferences(!), something I turned down as I'd be absolutely useless) were about nationalism. I explained why I'm a unionist, why you shouldn't call me English, and asked why those who bang on about flags never seem to treat them with respect.

In my personal life, when I lived in London, if you had asked anyone my politics they probably would have answered "He's obsessed about Britishness, just don't refer to anything as English" as they hushed you to be quiet lest I hear. My unionism, more all-encompassing than the most right-wing DUP nutter version, has been a central feature of my life.

But I accept I am in the minority. Wherever I look nationalism is no longer just "on the rise" but is here to stay. I mentioned merging two Wiki pages the other day, one about Latter-Day Saints in the UK and one about Latter-Day Saints in England, as they duplicate information. I've mellowed in my old age and wasn't even thinking about my old "Ugh England" agenda, yet was instantly attacked by someone determined I don't go near the Welsh or Scottish entries and telling me all about the evils of English colonialism (something that amused me as someone who probably despises the concept more than they do). Nationalists are everywhere. Alas.

I must simply accept that my distaste for Englishness (and the other forms of nationalism that prevade our world) is to be a solitary pursuit and leave the nationalists to fight over the bones of our islands. I shan't correct others when they call the UK "England".

But don't you dare call me English. I may not be able to convince you of the worthiness of unionism as a political concept, but at least respect who I am. I still treasure the parting gift I got upon leaving the first London job I had. It was a drinks coaster that said "Kentish First, British Second, European Third". My colleagues knew me well.

My Own Personal Brand Of Patriotism

St. George's Day. As any one of my personal acquaintance would know, this is not a day I respect. On many subjects I am a rational person with a healthy scepticism. I like evidence-based science. I find religion fascinating but ultimately false. I enjoy reasoned arguments from others and like to try and keep my beliefs consistent. But on the subject of patriotism, reason leaves me and is instead replaced with the sort of passion others seem to reserve for their deities.

And my form of patriotism is not one rooted in popular culture. It's my own brand mixing royalism, unionism and personal loyalty to strangers. I no longer attempt to argue against English nationalism as I once did. Nor do I argue against republicanism, given I find many arguments in favour of it both logical and compelling. But I also do not expect anyone to ever change my own beliefs on the matter.

I find English nationalism dull and and without romance. It seems unfocussed and, occasionally, loutish. I don't mean to say people who consider themselves "English" are louts, but that often the expression of nationalism that is most often encountered (i.e. through sport) is loutish.

And I find republicanism to often be less expressed in the logic that is so compelling and more about a personal hatred of Her Majesty and her family. The snide comments on Twitter I often see RT'd by @RepublicStaff are indicative of this nastiness and it leaves me cold. Furthermore, republicanism shares English nationalism's unromantic nature.

Perhaps it's my love of fantasy, my interest in British (plus earlier English and Scottish) history or a very human need for a little bit of irrationality in one's life, but I love the monarchy. I love the United Kingdom. I find a great deal of comfort in knowing the Queen is on her throne and she reigns over us. I like the pomp, I like the chivalry and I like the notion of personal loyalty to someone.

In my job I encounter so many unreasonable, impolite and, often, duplicitous people that I find I crave something as simple as being unfailingly loyal to another person without expecting anything in return. It's seems so pure and honourable to keep one's word to another; like something from that better part of our nature that we so often don't get to show.

I am personally loyal to Her Majesty and her heirs, to her United Kingdom and it's territories. I do not accept that patriotism means waving a big flag, celebrating some long dead saint or dying in some politically motivated war. It's not about "shared culture", where you are born or some historic borders. It's about loyalty, honour, decency and fellowship. To me it's about progress, innovation and goodwill.

Whatever happens to this country, whether it remains at it is or becomes an English Republic, I will remain a loyal British subject. Unwavering in my personal loyalty but respectful of other's beliefs.

St. George means nothing to me, but if he so moves you to acts of passion then far be it from me to try and dissuade you. But I'm more moved by things such as this excellent Youtube video I posted about yesterday:



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Tories Playing Politics With The Union

There is not many issues I consider more important than unionism. I know, I'm not as vocal about it as I used to be. I felt it was the one thing the Tories could be relied upon to defend. They might spend most of their time supporting their rich, business buddies and policing the sexual mores of the population but when it came to the Union, the Tories would be there come what may. Alas...

It has becoming increasingly obvious, in the years since 1997's decimation of the Tories in Scotland and the introduction of devolution, that the Tories were starting to embrace their inner-Little Englander. But I didn't realise just how far the rot had set in until today's latest instalment in the Peter "Cash for Cameron" Cruddas was revealed.

It would seem the Tories' unionism is somewhat lukewarm now and they are looking forward to a SNP victory in the independence referendum where they can snub their noses at an independent Scotland's demands!

“We, as a party, have to be seen to be fighting to keep the Union together. Even if we don’t agree with it, because at the end of it all, if the Scots say we’re out of here and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, it’s not what we campaigned for, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.”

That is a quote that will play right into the SNP's hands, and one that really shows the lack of principle, belief and passion in the Tories today. That's not just a problem for them, these last two weeks of petrol panics, pasty taxes and other such ridiculous petty little battles show just how devoid of focus and policies mainstream politics is (and George Galloway's victory shows how soft support for the Big Three parties is). But of all issues, the very future of our country is one on which you'd hope the Tories could at least set out a clear position rather than sit on the fence.

It is clear the Liberal Democrats must make the case for unionism in the Coalition. We have a vision of a federal Union, one that enables freedom for our nations and regions whilst keeping our country together. It's a bold, sensible and practical solution to the current constitutional mess left by Labour. We need to be screaming it from the rooftops. It's time for the Lib Dems to replace the cynical, foolish and poorly lead Conservative and Unionist party and become the new party of the Union.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

How To Lose A Referendum Part 1

David Cameron and the British Government have been playing silly-buggers with our Union and it's pissing me off. We all knew, after the election victory of the SNP last year, that a referendum on Scottish independence was inevitable in the next few years. And if you're a grumpy old unionist like me, then you've known it was on the cards ever since Labour's poorly thought out devolution (I favour a clearer, federal structure). Given this, I think it's a little thoughtless for the British Government to turn around and tell the Scottish Government when and how they can hold this referendum.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Moore said the government's "clear view" was that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under devolution laws passed in 1998 and that the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.

Do they have any idea on how that comes across? It might be the legal situation left thanks to Labour's rubbish future planning, but that sounds like just the sort of soundbite that plays straight into slippery Salmond's hands. We need to show the Scottish people why they should vote to stay in the Union not give them good reasons to resent interference from Westminster!

And lest you think this is a Coalition foul up, Labour appear to adopt the same sort of attitude. Here's what you do, accept the Scottish Government's date, make sure the question asked is clear and fair and then fight like mad to show all the benefits of being together rather than living on this island apart from each other. Is it really that hard?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Extremist Nationalist Organisations Linked To BNP: No Surprise There!

The Herald is reporting Scottish Defence League members having BNP connections despite the BNP banning such things.

As I've reported before, nationalist organisations having links to racist parties are ten a penny. Just look at the English Democrats and their England First Party friends, reported during the European Elections earlier this year.

Nationalism and racism don't need to go together, even an old fashioned Unionist like myself can admit that, it's just sad that they usually seem to. Well sad for the nationalists... ammunition for those of us who believe in a united, progressive future.

Fight the fascists, the racists and the nationalists who seek to destroy our tolerant country and create a white version of the Taliban, hellbent on creating a fixed, inflexible culture. Down with religious fundamentalists. Down with racist scum. Down with all who wish to impose their way of life on others.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Attacking Scottish Nationalists For Once

As someone who lives in London, I spend a lot of time (or at least I used to!) attacking English nationalists, who seem to get quite annoyed that I single them out over the Scottish. Well that's just geography for you, not a political statement of support for the SNP. So it gives me great pleasure to link to an article about one the SNP's shady illiberal views... they have a few...

The SNP and its pro-religionist homophobic agenda


This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The United Nations: A Slow Descent From Hope To Despair

I am a proud unionist. Being British that obvious means I believe in the Union as embodied by the United Kingdom. But it means more than that. I passionately believe in ever closer ties between all the nations of the world and thus I've always had a soft spot for the United Nations (despite it's many faults). But of late, I feel like the United Nations has been hijacked.

Nothing makes me feel more affection for the United Nations than speeches such as that of Eleanor Roosevelt at the declaration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see here for audio and text).

Aspirations to peace and freedom are obviously always going to be merely aspirations... we are humans after all. But it's nice to aim high. Sadly the United Nations has started to be taken over by the illiberal and the backward. First it adopted an article that clearly threatens freedom of speech with regards to defamation of religion. Now the President of the United Nations General Assembly supports the criminilisation of homosexuality and finds homosexuality "unacceptable". It's time the free people of the world (i.e. those not in backward, regressive places like Libya) stood up and said "Not in our name!".

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

I'd Prefer Stonewall Over A Gay Council Of Britain

An elected council to represent gay interests is suggested by the well meaning Stephen over at Pink News. I agree with him on how the media seem to use activists and undemocratic polls to define debates without consultation of the majority of people. But splitting this country into self defining groups of people based on sexuality, religion or race is just one of the things I, as a unionist, feel undermines the very existence of our country, and basic equal rights, before we even consider how on Earth one would select the electorate of such a group.

It's a nice idea but unworkable and an antithesis to community cohesion. When are we going to start being human first before we are what we wish to define ourselves as? We are all human and it is in all our interests that we all work towards a world where we treat each other as equals. We are in the 21st century, and it's time we got over our tribal nature.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The English Democrats: Reasonable Nationalists?

The English Democrats say on their FAQs:

Politically our policies are neither left nor right. We have a commitment to a mixed economy, but also require protection for the vulnerable and would advocate developing public ownership policies for key strategic industries. We are implacably opposed to globalisation, economies based on "cheap labour" and the offshoring of English jobs.

That is certainly laudable. They also state:

"English & Proud" - that's what English Democrats are - why should it be implied that you are a "Bigot" or a "Racist" simply because you are proud of your Country - we English Democrats are simply pro English.

Here, here I say. Being patriotic for one's country (even if I don't agree on the semantics here) should never be considered racist. But then, why are they allowing the England First Party to hang out at their conferences?

England First has as their first part of their brief/manifesto (sic) the following:

1. Stop all further immigration and start a programme of voluntary repatriation of non-European immigrants back to their lands of ancestral origin

Erm... that's racist (or racialist depending on how one likes to use these words). That's really racist. "Ancestral origin"? There's being against multiculturalism and then there's being against people because of their "origin". They are rather different things both in reality and in moral terms.

But not only does the England First Party offer it's support to the English Democrat candidates in some elections (something the EDs are powerless to stop), it also is allowed to speak at ED conferences. They even get photo ops with the parties European election candidates!! See here for pictures!

I hope the EDs have issued a firm denunciation of the close relations with the EFP, otherwise their claims to be tolerant English patriots who are neither of the left or right spectrum's of politics are really very hollow indeed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

It;s International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

Hug a member of the GLBTQ community today!!

Erm.. but why did they specify places as "England" and "Scotland" yet those from the United States were not listed by state. Grr... *breathes* It's a day of understanding I must accept that some people like being English and Scottish and move on... *breathes again*

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

What Has New Labour Ever Done For Us?

Undoubtedly, the 1997 election of New Labour into Government was welcomed throughout the country. The Tories has simply outstayed their welcome and although they'd started to fix their mistakes the problems of the early nineties still loomed large in public perceptions. And New Labour has done much to make this country better (although these achievements escape me right now). But as someone who, despite being a Lib Dem, has supported much of the New Labour Governments I feel totally disappointed with the last 12 years.

1. The reform of the House of Lords. What was the point of getting rid of the hereditary peers without completing the reform? It has created a weak, Government padded chamber unable to perform the function of reviewing legislation nor act as a check on executive power. Half hearted, lukewarm and unfinished initiatives seem to be the hallmark of the New Labour movement.

2. Devolution. A very "British solution". i.e. it's a total hodge podge of a compromise. I understand the urge for devolution. But what has happened is a confusing and unstable restructuring of the very fabric of our Union. Rather than seeking a sensible solution of referendums for the entire country (shocking) and then implementing a quasi-federal structure, New Labour have just bolted on extra bits of complication to our messy unwritten constitution. It's upset a great number of people across the country and really leaves no one happy. The nationalists want more, the unionists want less and the English just want something. Personally I believe the way they have handled the implementation of devolution has created the basis for the collapse of our country. Sad but true.

3. Gay rights. Wow I thought as Labour took a hatchet to the unequal age of consent and Section 28; here's a Government that truly believes in equality for the LGBT community. How wrong I was. Yet another hodge podge occurred with the introduction of Civil Partnerships.

i) Civil Partnerships have created an apartheid on marriage rights. Separate but equal. Again this doesn't please the religious crazies the Government was trying to appease and it leaves the LGBT community with different rights to their straight friends and family.
ii) By creating this situation they have pretty much made the likelihood of the introduction of gay marriage any time in the future (and I'm talking long term) nil. Plus that introduction will be complicated by the pre existence of civil partners whose status will make it very difficult to bring in gay marriage without voiding or damaging their new found rights. It would have been better if they'd just left well alone and allowed a Government with more balls the chance to implement a more equal institution.
iii) A deeply Catholic country can introduce gay marriage (Spain). An African nation can introduce gay marriage mere years after ending racial apartheid (South Africa). And a former Himalayan Hindu kingdom can begin the process of introducing it (Nepal). Yet we here in the supposedly advanced UK can't do it. What a flipping embarrassment.

4) Civil rights. The people of this country have lost more rights in the last 12 years than ever before, outside of the World Wars. Disgusting.

5) Foreign perception and diplomatic clout. Are stupid, unnecessary intervention in Iraq has damaged our reputation just as much as the Suez Crisis (which we didn't recover from until the 80s!) and, worse, took the heat off of the Afghanistan campaign allowing the Taliban to survive. Tony Blair should be unable to operate on an international level, and it is deeply concerning people still take that God bothering, war mongering idiot seriously.

I'm going to say it: Labour has been in power too long. Bring back the Tories. All is forgiven. I feel sick saying it but it has to be said. New Labour has failed.

Don't Call Me English

I continue my fight to be British, something that is increasingly hard to be here in London. There are so many "colonials" here who, not knowing any better, seem to feel it's okay to call me "English" (plus of course most of the English folk too which is about 90% of the population even those of ethnic minority origins which really makes me laugh). Well it's not and I'm pretty quick to educate them in the subtle differences.

The biggest of course is about being patriotic. Self-confessed English people are, in my opinion, being traitorous towards Her Britannic Majesty. If the United Kingdom is one country under Queen Elizabeth II then that is good enough for me to consider myself British. Anything else is secessionist rebellion against the monarchy and as self confessed royalist I'll have nothing to do with that thank you very much.

What connects British people? A shared ruler, a shared political structure (being eroded now by devolution, alas) and a shared military. Not culture, which is what some English folk protest connects them. People seem to think being English means you share an exclusive culture with all the other folk who live in "England" as opposed to the cultures of the Scots or Welsh. This of course is a ludicrous delusion. I no more share my culture with someone from Yorkshire than I do with someone from northern France. I suspect I'd probably understand the French person better too (my French is rudimentary but better than my Tyke). If that is not the case, if they really don't think culture connects them then being English is quite pointless as there is no other sane reason for considering yourself English than as part of one nationality and culture. Thus Englishness is a defunct concept.

The most important point for me though is aspirational. Britishness is a concept open to interpretation, free of the thousands of years of history of any other and formed only over the last couple of hundred years. The concept of Britishness, to me anyway, is one of being unobtrusively patriotic (no American gushing over the flag, more a silent respect), of being polite to others, of being thoughtful and of keeping ones emotions in check as much as possible. The good old British stiff upper lip as it were. Sure it's impossible for any human to constantly maintain such a holier than thou demeanour. But it can't hurt to try.

Englishness seems more in line with ideas of Anglo-Saxon bravado and a certain lack of class in everyday interactions. Of thoughtlessness and of arrogance. The St Georges flag seems to me to represent everything that I hate in this country.

This story from the Titanic empathises everything I consider important about being British. In everything I do I aspire to meet the Captain's demand of "Be British, boys, be British."

I just wish more people did the same.

So feel free to call yourself English and lay claim to the violence and destruction of the Anglo Saxons. I prefer to believe in looking forward, of believing in unity against sedition or progress over longing for an imaginary past. So don't call me English and don't call this country England. Until the nationalists (and of course the disinterested masses) win, it remains the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Long may it remain so.

P.S. Why do Americans call the country England? Even at the time of the Revolution it was the Kingdom of Great Britain. Grr...

Rant Ends

Further Reading

The How to be British Collection (US Amazon)

The English Nation: The Great Myth (US Amazon)

"British 'is as offensive as negro'"

An organisation headed by Ron Davies has put out a leaflet warning people to be careful using the term "British" in case it offends some and suggests referring to people in that annoying American style as "British Asians". I'm not "White British", it offends me when organisations suggest I am, and I'd hope those of other races would also be offended by being "separate but equal" in this weird way of classification. I'm just British so I say the following:

Fuck you Ron Davies. We always knew you were a self hating bastard. After you were caught cruising for sex in public, you failed to defend yourself and your freedoms and instead belittled those of us who believe in freedom and LIED to the police about what you were up to.

Now he "warns that 'the idea of British implies a false sense of unity'." NO! It aspires to a sense of unity. I'm sorry if aspiration to something better than sectarian, nationalistic rhetoric is something that offends you. But then as you are already known to lie to police officers I'm hardly surprised that you'd also be in favour of spreading disunity among the peoples of this island.

Some of us believe in a future of continued peaceful coexistence of the many peoples of our islands. Others dream of hiding in darkness with those who are like them, scared to come out into the Sun. I know which is the future I desire.

Nationalism Continues It's Surge

After the First World War the simmering European nationalist movements, some of whom were part of the causes of that catastrophic conflict, finally began to break up the mammoth continental empires. The shock of the Second World War and the interests of both sides during the Cold War ensured nationalism was made subservient to the interests of the superpowers. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the joining of the two Germany's, nationalism has begun to spread once more throughout Europe and touching places it had long been dormant. Belgium has been in the grip of one such surge of nationalism and the subsequent bitterness for many months. Just read this article for a profile on the Flanders region to see what I mean.

The same bitter recriminations reverberate around our great country right now as the English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and every other "nation" who calls our islands home begin a slow descent towards separation.

In some of their eagerness to spread their negative politics some of nationalism's favourite politicians are starting to make some decisions which go against the best interests of those they claim to represent.

Alex Salmond has, for the last two years, been building ties to some rather dodgy Islamic groups and starting the introduction of state funded religious schools up there in Britain's northern reaches. Read this rather excellent blog post for more. Needless to say this is a bad idea both for Muslims in general, who should not be expected to simply support the organisations Alex Salmond deems to represent them, and for the need to try to avoid creating ever more sectarian divides by labeling everyone by the religion of their parents.

When will people wake up that nationalism is the politics of the past, a symptom of the dark side of the human mind which likes to judge people not for their own individual qualities but simply for the place of their birth or even who they were born to.

This country needs a unifying leader, someone who can offer hope and show the benefits of our Union. We need some one with vision, who can bring about real advancements in our society rather than just keeping the status quo ticking over.

Fingers crossed we last until such a leader appears.

Why Am I A Unionist?

I've been a Unionist since at least before the 1997 election when I would have been just 13 years old. Why I am a Unionist is not something I've ever given much thought to. Well given that the country seems to be marching ever more quickly towards a break up, it's time I wrote down why I'd prefer the Union to continue and why I think nationalism is not the way. I'll do that in a series of (rather long) bullet points:

1) Let's start with a trivial reason. Personally I'd be deeply upset to wake up one day and find the country of my birth, the United Kingdom, had ceased to exist. I know, even if it may seem silly, that I would not be able to think of "England" as the country of my birth. To find myself adrift without a state would be fairly disturbing.

2) On a more serious note, the future of mankind lies not in petty bickering between so called "nations" but in ever closer cooperation. If our species is to survive we must rise above our own "national" interests and begin to work together to create a world filled with hope.

Humans are, by their very nature, prone to tribalism, violence and petty arguments. But we have evolved a rational mind, one which can be used to overcome our inherent flaws. We must give up clinging to the concept of flags, a concept of "nations". And here you say "But isn't Unionism simply clinging to a flag/nation on a larger scale?". Not in my case it's not, as I would be perfectly happy to see the Union Flag removed from public buildings were it to be replaced with a European flag. Of course, this must happen only when the institutions of the European Union are sufficiently democratic, etc. etc. And then to see that replaced by some United Nations flag. I express my belief in Unionism as a belief in unity and cooperation between different groups of people, and my Unionism is not fixed to limited borders but embraces all humanity.

3) My real issue lies in the darkness that seems to dwell at the heart of the nationalist ideology. Scottish Nationalism seems to me to be little more than clinging to long gone injustices and racist hatred of the "English". English Nationalism seems mainly to be about present perceived injustices with regards to the way some of the Home Nations are treated plus an added element of an non existent "English" culture, which remains either ill defined or worse defined by bangers and mash and other such godawful concepts of "culture". Where is the uplifting, positive spirit of progress within these narratives? Nowhere, for the politics of nationalism, as we saw at the beginning of the 20th Century across Europe, are the politics of hate, conservatism and distrust.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want a world of just one culture, one colour nor of one mind. But I take issue with someone who suggests "England" has a shared culture or history and that "Britain" does not. What culture does someone like me, Kentish through and through, share with a Yorkshireman? None, except that which we share through the history of these islands. While I have no problem living under a political system within which our cultures can unite for the common good, I couldn't reasonably be expected to live under system that automatically assumes some deeper "bloodtie" between us. Kent and Yorkshire used to be in two different countries! Just as England and Scotland used to be separate countries. And thus we find the inherent problem with nationalism, they look back but only so far. If I were to suggest we all just live in tribes and act like druids, people would give me funny looks. But that is the sort of mindset the nationalists espouse in their outlook, but only to a more recent period of time. And thus people, for some reason, take them more seriously.

4) Back to a trivial reason. The symbols and icons of English Nationalism speak volumes of the sort of people who believe the English nationalist ideology. Richard the Lionheart was not fond of England. St George never even set foot here. The English flag is dull and ugly. The English Rose is a combination of two northern families' emblems, not exactly representative.

5) Should Scotland leave the Union they will expect certain things... a share of the army, oil etc. Alas I think they shall be deeply disappointed leading to further acrimony between the nations. This I feel would lead only to instability on these islands, unnecessary and dangerous.

6) If we should fail to be able to continue to live peacefully on these islands under one Government then that is a sad indictment on all the inhabitants. Yet another ray of hope shall be extinguished as these islands roll back towards the Dark Ages.