Wall to Wall productions in new exciting venture

Will Francome works for a television production company called Wall to Wall productions. This is the company that brought us the entertaining TV programme Who Do You Think You Are where various celebrities traced back their family trees for our pleasure and their enlightenment. Wall to Wall have apparently been commissioned by Channel 4 to create a one off programme on what it means to be English and the company are currently looking for people who would be interested in participating in the show by explaining what it means for them to be English and by allowing similar family tree examinations to their previous programme to be performed.

All very interesting and quite likely to provide some entertaining viewing.

Except there is, in my opinion, something very wrong with Wall to Wall’s approach. You see it seems that to qualify to comment on what you feel it means to be English using their platform you need to have a very specific kind of family tree. An 'ethnically' English one (though they don't say exacly how far back counts).

I have already heard of people who have been turned down by Wall to Wall because they need ”someone who's family tree is probably all English".

One has to wonder why? Is Wall to Wall’s position that to actually qualify as English one has to consider ones self ethnically English? If so this does certainly disqualify a large number of people who consider themselves English from having the opportunity to voice their opinion on what it means to be what they consider themselves to be on Wall to Wall’s production. If that is not their position then why not provide the platform to all English people?

And what if, as is extremely likely, it turns out that the qualifying participants actually have, you know, non-English elements to their family tree? What then? Will Wall to Wall excitedly point out to the participant that he or she is no longer qualified to comment? Will they exult at the participants mongrel nature? Is this result of any examination into a pure English participants family tree actually expected by Wall to Wall productions? They would be extremely foolish not to expect this to be the outcome, certainly if they go back far enough.

Mary Jones, who I believe works for Wall to Wall confirms in an email to Gareth that the programme is to be about English identity:

Channel 4 Television are making a film about English identity and are looking for contributors willing to appear on the programme to talk about what it means to be English today.

[My emphasis] And yet the programme makers are deliberately excluding large numbers of English people on the basis of obvious non-English bloodlines in recent family history.

That, to me, is deliberate exclusion of English people on the basis of ethnicity and is underhand. It would be, from my point of view, perfectly reasonable to create a programme which examines the family trees of people who consider themselves ethnicly English (whatever that means) if Wall to Wall productions are up front about that and do not represent their programme as being about anything other than an exercise in discovery with respect to pure blood lines. But to include in any shape or form any language about what it means to be English in this programme while excluding those whose recent bloodlines fail the qualifying procedure is a disgrace.

One of many expected closing lines by Wall to Wall on many, if not all participants: Oh look, a Frenchman. Can you imagine?

First piece up at Anthem4England

For those who are interested here is my first piece for the folks at Anthem4England.

Anthem4England now open

It's been in construction for a while (and still is) but without further delay or procrastination here is the new Anthem4England web resource which includes a blog for your reading pleasure.

Did you nod when you read it?

You have to wonder how it has come to this:

In such politically correct times this is an extremely brave decision by an officer of Wear Valley District Council to give the English flag such prominence.

What other country on Earth can have that said about it and its relationship with its national flag?

It takes more than a few football hooligans if you ask me.

As for asking myself the same quesiton as the title of this post, no. No I didn't nod.

The Archbishop of York on the English

The Archbishop of York has apparently said that the English need to reclaim their national identity:

He called for the English to rediscover their cultural identity by properly marking celebrations such as St George’s Day on April 23. “I speak as a foreigner really. The English are somehow embarrassed about some of the good things they have done. They have done some terrible things but not all the Empire was a bad idea. Because the Empire has gone there is almost the sense in which there is not a big idea that drives this nation.”

I'm not sure I'm too happy about the implied equality between the British Empire and the English (it was the British Empire after all) but it is a good start and a useful contribution by the Archbishop.

He also said that "Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains,".

It's would be easy to see an ulterior motive here (ie using English nationalism as a leverage for Christianity) but another voice adding to the slowly rising chorus is useful.

Can anyone doubt that this issue is still a marginal one? Devolution has thrown a real spanner into the machinery that is Britain. Devolution and a seeming willingness (true or not) to decry England and talk up other minority cultures have acted as catalysts and many people are beginning to notice.

It's too early to tell if a rising English Nationalism will be the big localised issue of the early 21st century but all the ingredients are there. As commentators we all take a gamble on what's hot to trot and what isn't and, as time passes, it's going to be fascinating to see how many other bloggers join the gig.

The English rod

Gisela Stuart over at openDemocracy is worried and the focus of this worry are the usual suspects:

Yet it has only been in the last five years or so that I have heard people in my constituency telling me, “I am not British – I am English”. That worries me. British identity is based on and anchored in its political and legal institutions and this enables it to take in new entrants more easily than it would be if being a member of a nation were to be defined by blood. But a democratic polity will only work if citizens’ identification is with the community as a whole, or at least with the shared process, which overrides their loyalty to a segment.

I wonder how worried Gisela would be if English identity was also anchored in its political and legal institutions? And that, after all, is the problem. A problem highlighted so well by Gareth’s essay on English Civic Nationalism. Gareth asked me if I thought that the Government ”created a rod for its own back in refusing to recognise or build a civic national identity for England”. It was a question that I hadn’t considered before and I had to re-evaluate my answer to that question after I had read his essay. Now we see, in Gisela’s concern, the actual rod that Gareth was talking about. There is no real focus for the English other than ethnicity and that is due entirely to the appropriation by the state of England’s cultural and civic institutions. As Gareth said:

”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.”

So where does the rise in English Nationalism, self awareness and self assertion go from here? The answer to that is in the hands of the government. To avoid fanning the flames of English nationalism is one thing. To prevent the expression of this rising phenomenon by ignoring calls for English political institutions (which are a prerequisite for recognised civic institutions) is to attempt to put a cork back into an increasingly agitated bottle of bubbly.

Via Hotspur at the Cross of St. George forums.

English civic nationalism

Gareth has published his excellent essay on English Civic Nationalism. Fill your boots.

Gareth has kindly allowed me to put his essay up as a document on this site. It is now linked to from the document section in the left margin.

Dad, what did you do...

Via wonko comes this rather nice poster from the Campaign for an English Parliament:

You only write when you're winning! Write when you're winning!

An interesting moment occured last night during the match between England and Poland. Wright-Phillips, a black player, who had worked his socks off during the game was replaced by another player who just so happened to be white. The booing from the crowd when the substitution was made was incredible. From what I could tell it was simply a reaction to the incredible commitment and hard work shown by Wright-Phillips but I couldn’t help but think that it was a missed opportunity for some of our more ‘colour sensitive’ columnists. Perhaps I am being unfair but if the substitution was the other way round and the booing just as obvious what a target rich environment that would have been.

It was a good moment. A completely colour blind crowd of people showing appreciation for a player based upon his skill and hard work and nothing else. Frankly it’s the common face of English football and only deserves a mention because of my musings about the lack of material for some.

Steady on, old chap, we Brits are actually rather exciting

When is an article about Britain not an article about Britain? When it's an article about England.

Useful idiots

This is one of those stories that is both astonishing and "hardly surprising" all at the same time.

I have recently arrived home, in Leeds, from work to be confronted by two Police Officers, who according to neighbours have been calling back and forth most of the day and at one point sat outside my door for over an hour during which time a number of neighbours were quizzed as to my whereabouts and "what sort of person I am".Many of whom thought that perhaps I had commited some heinous crime.

...

I have flown the National flag of England on my property for the past two years since we bought this house, and Ihave been told, in no uncertain terms, that I risk arrest if I continue to do so.

It appears that someone who walked past my house over the weekend has reported that she finds seing the National Flag of this Country "uncomfortable" and has surmised that I am clearly a Racist and should be stopped from doing so.

One of the many problems, as I see it, with the modern police force is that they are allowing themselves to be used as tools of harassment. Their rules probably deny them any reasonable room for flexibility. The correct response to the complainant should have been "madam, to feel in some way intimidated by the national flag of the country you are living in indicates a significant failure on you part to integrate. I will not allow myself to be used as a tool for your sensibilities in this case."

Via Gareth.

Oh cripes, not the English again

Ok, time to be honest here. Who of you out there actually come across this kind of attitude to the Welsh?

After a millennium and a half of putting up with Wales, the English attitude towards the Welsh remains one of irritation interrupted by bouts of insult. Abuse of the national neighbours is a familiar story - the Germans do it to the Poles, Czechs think the Slovaks are dozy and the Greeks find the Bulgars dodgy.

The irritating thing about Wales - for the English - is the sheer persistence of the linguistic difference. We do, it is true, assimilate well, which is why, per capita, few countries have produced so many actors as Wales. English liberty is really the freedom to imitate the English - which then gives the English the right to mock the assimilated.

Erm, it's not even on my radar.

Via Nicholas .

Beer and a day off, what’s not to like?

We all know that St. George is a little cross over the lack of recognition he has been getting of late. Everyone has been ignoring him for donkey’s years and, little by little, he’s been getting more and more depressed. Why not try and cheer the old man up a little and sign this petition being run by Wells brewery (via Gav).

It’s just not cricket

Some people are just dipped in confusion at birth.

Peter Briffa highlights an example of such a person in the form of Yasmin Alibhai Brown who tries, and fails, to spin the prospect (and eventual fact) of English success in the Ashes into something akin to crapness:

If the cricket is won, many more white Britons will give up on Britain and take refuge in England

Eh? The Cricket? Responsible for turning Unionists into English Nationalists?

“Look son, we’ve won the cricket. Burn all the Union Flags in the house.”

It’s not even remotely plausible as a reason for denouncing the Union and to suggest that it is reveals something very strange about Brown’s opinion of Britons. Well, not just Britons but the usual suspects, you know, the English ones.

What is it about the English that forces her into such commentary? Why does devolution in Scotland and in Wales not fill her with the dread that she so obviously feels about the dilution of the Union or a rise in English Nationalism. Devolution is a far bigger threat to the long term health of the Union than the cricket. Is it because those issues lack a certain, oh I don’t know, Englishness.

What’s the word I am looking for?……….Youbetcha!

The fact that devolution has completely ignored the nation of England is a far more believable reason for a gradual rise in English Nationalism than a win at a sporting event.

Alarmingly, she continues:

But this is more than just cricket I sense. It is the agony and ecstasy of Englishness, today in resurgence after years of confusion and surliness. From Orwell to Tebbitt, cricket has been used as a metaphor for English nationalism.

Actually Yasmin, cricket has been used as a metaphor for fairness and balance. Your attitude simply isn’t cricket.

After the mandatory cooldown period I have written the following email to the columnist:

Dear Yasmin,

I am assuming that by making that comment you have a keen desire to see white English keep true to Britain rather than decry the Union in favor of England.

There are a number of issues I would like to take up with you if you can spare the time.

Firstly I don't really see the point you are trying to make by bringing colour into the issue. I am of Greek and Italian descent and quite, quite brown. Indeed it is very likely that I do not have a drop of Anglo Saxon blood in me though I was fortunate enough to be born in London and raised entirely in England.

Why would I be immune from an incentive to 'take refuge in England' when, say, my perfectly lily white neighbour would not be? It's an interesting point I think because it seems to me that you are implying a strong correlation between colour and certain behaviour. How does this differ from stereotyping to the lowest common denominator of a particular ethnic group? For instance, it has been some time since I have seen anyone in the press seek to tarnish black Britons with the belief and behaviour of the supporters of mostly forgotten Black Power movements.

Of more importance, however, is the real crux of the matter. The great local issue of the day and quite possibly the next few decades or so. The real pressure on Britain, the thing that has and is likely to continue to fragment those that once considered themselves as British into English Nationalism, is the question of the unbalanced approach to devolution that this government has taken.

Many Britons have been more than happy to move along through life with little concern regarding the Union but knowing that it effectively consist of a number of nations all generally getting along together rather happily. Devolution has suddenly changed all that because, frankly, people are very slowly beginning to notice that the nation of England has been left out of the deal struck with other nations.

Indeed, the language coming from our leaders has raised the temperature rather than cooled it what with talk about Scotland being different from England because Scotland "is a nation in its own right". The English are suddenly realising that their Nation doesn't exist in any real political terms.

There is great inequality in Britain at present. A political inequality which can only increase the number of people in England who, in your language, would seek to take refuge in England.

That is the real danger to the Union and, I fear, a fragmented and declining Britain will be the inevitable result unless the asymmetry is addressed on a National level.

Write about that and I'll invite you round for tea.

PS. Don't talk Regional Assemblies, they do not represent politics on a National level and, for instance, could have done nothing to address the issue of Student top up fees.

Sincerely,

Land of crappy MSM commentators

Look! There! A swarm of racist British Nationalists!:

It's just a party, I hear you say. Well, fine, hold it somewhere else, maybe at the headquarters of the British National Party”

Their true crime however is not racism but the fact that some of them take some kind of pride in waving the Union flag at a distinctly British event. Shock followed by horror, but only at the Observer. The flag itself has lost a certain amount of its lustre with me over the past year or so but at least my reasons (the Union does not offer enough equality for its member nations at present) have foundation. The prejudice that does exist comes not from the flag waving folk at the proms but, instead, from the author of the piece.

As England Expects says:

The only prejudice, the only bigotry, the only hate about the whole event is in the tiny petty, unpleasant and scabrous minds of the likes of Holden

For shame sir.

Breath deeply and understand that what you desire is nothing less than failed self hate. We are not interested and we wish you only succour for your sadness.

Zadie Smith commentary

England disgusting.

Of course we must have some sympathy for Zadie's position. She is a bit of a hottie which always impresses. In truth she is only reiterating what a great many people have been saying for a while (though not limiting it to just England as Zadie does). It's the great social breakdown and lack of respect thing. I'm not sure I get her "money everywhere" issue but there you go.

However, the good news is that not all people in England can be so easily judged. You see people are far more than just their cover as I am sure Zadie herself will be all to keen to admit:

But Zadie? Well Zadie mopes. She frowns. She sulks. She shuns eye contact. And we’re not the first to notice it. Her shyness gives her a bad reputation, she tells us. In the past, signings have gone badly wrong, a lack of small talk with bookshop clerks the problem. Her publisher received complaints: Zadie Smith is rude, disgusting, anti-social. What did they expect, she asks us, a chat show host?

No Zadie. Perhaps a social commentator instead?

The Secret People

Over at The Society of Qualified Archivists I notice a link to a particulary nice poem by some chap called G. K. Chesterton. It's called The Secret People:

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

...

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

And here's another cracker from here:

Elegy in a Country Churchyard

The men that worked for England
They have their graves at home:
And bees and birds of England
About the cross can roam.

But they that fought for England,
Following a falling star,
Alas, alas for England
They have their graves afar.

And they that rule in England,
In stately conclave met,
Alas, alas for England,
They have no graves as yet.

It's a sad poem but I feel like laughing.

Milton Abbey

We had the great pleasure of being guests at a most wonderful wedding over the weekend which took place in the remarkable Milton Abbey in Dorset. The history of this Abbey goes back to 933 AD and the original was founded by King Athelstan of Wessex. For more information click here.

For your viewing pleasure here are some of the photographs that I took:

Local images of England

I took my camera to work yesterday and took these pictures of the English countryside on my drive in. These scenes are only a couple of minutes from my door:

I didn't do it, honest

I spotted my first bit of graffiti that hints at disquiet within the Union.

HOME RULE FOR ENGLAND

Painted across an M1 motorway bridge just inside Bedfordshire.

The state of the Union

It's almost as if.....

Olympic win 'good for Scotland'.

Olympics perfect to 'sell' Wales.

London beats Paris to 2012 Games.

This proves absolutely nothing except that at the time of going to press the BBC page devoted to Scotland ran a story based upon what Scotland's First Minister Jack McConnel had to say with respect to the Olympics and Scotland. The BBC page devoted to Wales ran a story on what Welsh Secretary Peter Hain had to say with respect to the Olympics and Wales. The BBC page devoted to England ran a story about London beating Paris. Which minister felt that it was his or her duty to speak up about what the games meant for England? None. The reason why this is the case should be obvious to all.

Hugs everyone, and here is your prize

They had a phone in today on BBC Radio 5 Live. It was about sport and what we might need to do to improve our standing on the world stage. Much of it was based around funding, the lack of funding, self belief, something about Empire (when what they actually meant was shared history) and the like. I wasn’t particularly interested in most of it.

Then one man phoned in with his perspective on where the system is failing his young lad who is a bit keen on football. Apparently, and I am as shocked at this as you are likely to be, when playing organised football at school the kids are instructed not to make any tackles. The fear is that the school will face a legal challenge for compensation if someone gets hurt.

Effectively they are not playing football. They seem to have invented an entirely new game. It comes as no great surprise that it’s not exactly conducive to creating a generation of world beaters. Particularly when no-one else in the world plays that particular game.

Parliaments based upon what now?

This is interesting (via Doctorvee).

Talk of 'Englishness' as a cultural identity annoys me, particularly when it's used to justify strengthening 'England' as an administrative region, and even more particularly when it's used to lobby for an English parliament. I've finally managed to put my finger on why.

Many bits of the administrative region called England - London, Cornwall, Yorkshire, Newcastle-and-surroundings, Manchester-and-surroundings, Scouseland-and-surroundings and Cumbria, for starters - all have regional identities that are far stronger than any 'English' identity.

This all then follows into suggestions that regional English parliaments are set up on the basis of local cultural identity rather than a single English Parliament for the whole of England (oddly referred to in the Article as an administrative region called England rather than the country of England):

Re regional assemblies: I'm pretty sure [there was a NO vote for the North East regional assembly] because they a) were bollocks talking shops with no power and b) didn't represent the regional identities that people actually have.

One has to remember when considering how to administer a nation that such administration should not be based around cultural lines. On purely practical grounds it’s because cultures within areas change more often and faster than one might expect particularly in very localised parts of those areas (over periods of decades or, sometimes, even faster). Immigration is part of the reason for this and so is migration to different areas. Though I accept that many areas of England do hold on to localised cultures for significant periods this is by no means something that can be relied upon. Nor should it be. Most administrative structures based around cultural identity will, after time, find themselves having to change with the culture change if they are to be culturally representative and this will quite possibly lead to friction and, unless the cultural change is right across the region, impossible to do in a fully representative manner. Of course this goes for national parliaments but they do not exist on the basis of a cultural remit to administer.

Another reason why cultural based administration is not necessarily a good thing is because it would, by its very nature and by its very reason for existing, have to base its policy on cultural grounds. If it did not then there would be no point in using culture as a basis for defining administrative regions. This is a particularly unfair administrative remit, and yet it is the only remit that a culturally based administration could reasonably follow. It’s unfair on minority groups within the area, unfair on immigrants than move to the area and generally unhealthy in my opinion.

Another issue I have with this whole notion is that it attempts to define England by artificial political administration. Nations are generally (except during major upheaval) defined by their traditional borders and I think most people are happy with that. Of course borders are artificial but they are there, they are clearly defined and, more to the point, accepted. The writer of the article I linked to has this to say about what people think:

There are far more people in the administrative region called England who loathe this concept of 'Englishness' than there are people who follow it.

I very much doubt that this particular form of racism is as rife as the author suggests but whether it is or not if one were to ask people if they would be happy for the borders of England to be changed I expect the answer would be a resounding no and that is because most of these people define their nationality by their country of birth (or adoption) which is defined by its borders. If you were to ask everyone in the whole of the English nation if they considered their nationality English I suspect you would get far more answering yes. To try and define England by Englishness is to ask the wrong question. England is a country in a Union of countries and its citizens/subjects are English. Unless, of course, they don’t want to be but this is no different for any other nation on the Earth and is, once again, nothing to do with Englishness.

The question about using artificial regions over and above those that already exist to administer areas of so called cultural identity has already been tested somewhat in the North East of England (a geographical location with an extremely strong culture) and the answer given was a significant blow to those politicians who thought these artificial regions a good idea.

Many nation states have strong cultural subcultures and localised identities (Italy, for instance) and most still use the usual model of administration via single parliaments. An argument against a single parliament for England on cultural grounds must also follow for all other countries with culturally flavoured areas. It’s a plan fraught with danger. It has more to do with representation because of common culture and less to do with representation of people within nation states in-spite of their differences.

I agree with the author that calls for an English Parliament should not be based on purely cultural grounds and that use of the word Englishness as used in Garry Bushell’s article is not helpful (though it was not the bulk of his article).

It’s not about Englishness chaps any more than it is about being a gypsy, or being an easily tanned person with foreign parents such as myself. It is about a country called England and its citizens/subjects and the fact that some countries in the Union have political representation in the form of a parliament and assemblies and are benefiting from them when another member country of the Union does not.

I define my nationality by my country and that country is England. I want my nation to have equal representation in the Union as a nation (lust like all the others). It’s an issue framed by nations. Why should one nation have a parliament in the union and not the others? Cultural arguments simply do not wash because to have them one has to accept that only countries that have a single and strong cultural identity should have a national parliament.

As an aside:

Here is an interesting question that I have discussed long and hard with friends in the past. If you believe that England has less of a cultural identity than other countries in the Union then ask yourself why? How is it that, as an example (and if you believe it) Scotland has managed to maintain a strong cultural identity over a period of a number of centuries while England has not? It’s a fascinating question with a number of very interesting possible answers.

On your bike

The bicycle has won some kind of BBC award for being the nations favorite invention. Coincidentally enough a whole bunch of these things will be travelling about a bit on something called a Tour of Britain. Missing from the tour is a team identifiably from England. Missing from the official web site is a good reason for England's exclusion.

That's an odd nationality

Here's an interesting letter from the office of John Prescott, the deputy Prime Minister. It's from 2002:

"...there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom and are therefore British/English."

Of course if I thought for one moment that anyone in England was about to take the word of our political masters on this subject seriously I would begin to get worried. What Prescott's office is asking us to believe is that the Nation of England and the Nationality of the English stopped existing because a few thousand words banged out on a few crappy typewriters by a small number of monkeys.

If for one moment the same people believed that their power-base relied upon the modification of these documents to suddenly re-create England and the English they would do so like a shot.

That's the measure of what they believe nationality to be. In and out of existence at their behest.

Like children they believe in magic.

And some see it as a good thing

So, apparently, the British are not as uncultured and as brutish as our European cousins might think. You see some survey commissioned in Italy found that the Brits are rather super when it comes to the finer things in life.

There I was, just about to embark upon a bit of basking when I realised what those finer things might be:

‘There is a perception that we are uncultured. But it is a myth,’ he insists. ‘There is increasing participation in the arts in this country. Gallery and theatre attendences are rising. They are on the up all the time.

Sounds dreadful.

You remember back in the old days when a fellow would, when making disparaging remarks about the French, allude to those cigarette smoking, dark glasses wearing, street cafe chattering, art 'loving', politically sophisticated, well dressed good for nothings? Well, that's what we have become.

Tragic.

New Little Englanders

It's good to see Iain Murray over at The Edge of England's Sword posting again. He's only been back at it five minutes and has already redefined the term Little Englander:

I therefore propose a redefinition of the term "Little Englander" -- now to mean someone who believes England/ the UK is a small, insignificant power, despite all the abundant evidence to the contrary.

It’s just the flag of your country – no need for alarm

Hounslow council seem interesting. They are refusing to fly the St. George’s flag over their civic centre on St. George’s day (23rd April) and are refusing to publish related articles and encourage the organisation of events in local schools. It’s hard to work out quite why but it seems to have something to do with not wanting to upset the locals, 30% of them apparently not being English. I wonder if anyone on the council has actually bothered to find out how the locals actually feel about it?

Imagine living in a foreign country. Would you be against the council of the town you live in flying their national flag and organising other related events on their national day? No of course you wouldn’t. Would you even suggest that some of your fellow settlers might be offended? Of course not. So what exactly is the council’s problem?

Also on The CEP blog.

Too much hatey Katie matey

Bishop Hill points us to this simply astonishing article by Katie Grant in the Scotsman:

Where the English are unattractively soft, the Scots are endearingly tender. Where the English are yobbish and aggressive, the Scots are manly and tough. Where the English are insufferably arrogant, the Scots are grittily stubborn.

Of course we could point out to Katie how untrue and irresponsible her generalisations are but she's a clever girl and has already prepared her escape route for her obvious desire to belittle a whole bunch of people she has never met.

Preceding her comments above she wrote:

Abroad, Scots are respected for not being English, but are still part of a Great Britain with more friends across the globe than enemies. And people like us better.

And there is her way out. Accuse her of being an anti-English idiot and she will simply reply that her words are those of Scotland's friends across the globe.

Typical Mainstream Media pants.

These are my real world (first or second hand) experiences of Scottish tenderness.

An Englishman walks into a bar in Scotland and asks for a pint of his favourite beer. He is derided as an English poof for not using the correct language to order his beverage.

An Englishman has just watched his national team loose to a foreign European country on penalties. A handful of young Scottish men are dancing with glee that a British team has lost. The same handful that were extremely vocal during the match in support of a traditional British sporting "foe".

An Englishman over the wall on a freezing cold new years day is refused a taxi for not being Scottish.

An Englishman, against his better judgement, resorts to supporting the French rugby team. Enquiries reveal that it is simply because he is sick and tired of what he perceives as the traditional hatred of the Scots for the English.

It would be remiss of me to consider any of the above incidents as anything other than the result of individual prejudices and misunderstandings.

The facts of the matter, Katie, are that both England and Scotland have their share of thugs. Both have their fair share of manly and tough individuals. Both have aggressive teenagers. Both are blessed with tender individuals.

So, in recognition of Katie's contribution to the world of ridiculous generalisations and discriminations against the English I hereby announce the Sullivanistic "Katie Grant" award. Bloggers who feel inclined might like to award it to any other commentator who finds it as hard as Katie does to hide their anti-English sentiments.

The British Council

According to their annual report the purpose of the British Council is to:

build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements.

I’ve read much of the report and it certainly seems that the Council do an excellent and worthwhile job.

The British Council also recognises, through the publishing of work by Professor P. Taylor, Britain’s important roll as a bridge between the USA and the rest of the world:

The agonising in the United States after September 11th about ‘why they hate us so much’ would suggest a failure on the part of American cultural diplomacy. Considerable efforts are now – perhaps belatedly – being expended on convincing a global audience about the Americans ‘as a force for good in the world’.

Tony Blair described this as the ‘gulf of misunderstanding’ and it is obviously seen as important enough by the council to warrant pointing out Britain’s roll in helping to bridge this gulf and in helping to repair this suggested failure in American cultural diplomacy. Personally I do not believe that there has been a failure by the Americans but that there is a gulf, say between the USA and some countries in mainland Europe, I have no doubt.

Clearly proud of the United Kingdom, the council also recognises its diversity.

There is a web area specifically devoted to Scotland. On it they say:

The British Council enhances Scotland's international reputation and contributes to building an internationally-oriented, outward-looking Scotland.

Jolly good. Scotland has an international reputation to be proud of and it’s not inappropriate, I think, for the council to want to work towards enhancing Scotland’s reputation even further.

The council, in their magnanimity, also have web areas specifically devoted to Wales and Northern Ireland. Welsh wind farms, apparently, generate enough electricity to meet the needs of nearly 100,000 British homes. An encouraging thought for any global citizen worried about global warming I would think. The council in Northern Ireland share their unique experience in education, governance and arts with countries overseas through the creation of lasting mutual relationships worldwide. I have no doubt that the sharing of these experiences is appreciated and applauded and does indeed increase the appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements.

By providing this country and province specific web real estate, the British Council is quite rightly recognising those countries and provinces within the United Kingdom that have unique or compelling contributions to make to the rest of the world. Cultural diplomacy at work.

Nationalism

I’m not really sure what nationalism is. Are there many types of nationalism? Can it be good as well as bad? How does it relate to the concept of the nation? Does nationalism define a nation or can a nation exist and continue to do so without a nationalistic element? More questions. Consider this an admission that my education is lacking in this respect.

I ask for a few reasons.

Firstly, due to a blog ad run by the chaps over at The Campaign for an English Parliament I have been made aware of a certain lack of parity or symmetry in Britain. In this response to Austin Mitchell (MP for Grimsby) Phil Evans wrote:

We had a constitutional settlement before Devolution which over-represented Scotland and Wales in a broadly acceptable system of 'asymmetry'. The Scots elected to change the status quo and opted for a Parliament. This shifted the degree of imbalance to an unacceptable extent and created unworkable anomalies such as the 'West Lothian' question. An English Parliament addresses these anomalies in a fair and democratic way. The stated aim of the CEP is to establish an English Parliament with powers similar to those already granted to Scotland.
…
Mitchell and his ilk obstinately refuse to accept that it is Scottish and Welsh devolution that has already undermined the viability of the UK by rendering the previous 'asymmetry' unworkable. They must now reconcile themselves to the English dimension; they have no choice if they wish to maintain the Union.

The issues raised by the CEP seem reasonable to me. The lack of parliamentary representation for the English as a nation bugs me enough that I have written about it on occasion and have given my support to the campaign cause. Does this make me a nationalist?

Secondly I am anti-EU. The reasons for this are varied and my opposition was initially through instinct. I don’t like the fact that I have not been asked to vote specifically on the question of further unification. I don’t like the lack of accountability to me as a voter. I don’t see it as necessary and think we can do perfectly well with generally open trade agreements. I am completely unconvinced about the political and much of the legislative aspects of the project. I tend to see it as another manifestation of The Conspiracy of the Toads. I don’t think, however, that all nationalists are inherently anti-EU but is nationalism a pre-requisite for being so? To ask in another way, can you be anti-EU but not a nationalist? I think you can be, for instance if you think the EU is corrupt or a breeding ground for corruption and corruption is one of your bug bears. Or, perhaps, you see it as an inefficient way of doing business.

Thirdly because I have read, on occasion, a number of writers/bloggers that I respect state that they have contempt for or a dislike of nationalism. As recently as yesterday Perry de Havilland wrote that he shares Einstein's distain [sic?] for nationalism. Laban Tall once wrote Nationalism, that force which is so evil in a Western nation…. I understand that nationalism can be used as a force for evil. History has shown how true this can be. But is it generally the case? Can nationalism be a force for good? Does it come in different calibres?

Miroslav Hroch defines has this to say about the nation:

Now the 'nation is not, of course, an eternal category, but was the product of a long and complicated process of historical development in Europe. For our purposes, let us define it at the outset as a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society.

If you believe and support these ties and objective relationships does this make you a nationalist and, perhaps to some, worthy of distain?

The complexity of the issue of nationalism can be born out, I suspect, by the amount that has been written about it. The Nationalism Project carries some of this material.

This blog is called The England Project not specifically because it is about England. It often isn’t. It is, I suppose, named after me. I am The England Project. Like I have said before, my mother is Italian and my father is a Greek Cypriot and I was born in London. I should be more European than any political project can ever pretend to be. Having said that I have turned out to be more a product of my environment than one of my ancestry and that environment is England. Its affect on me and my willingness to allow it to affect me, what with the other cultural injections I get from family, is the project. If you were to meet some of my English born cousins you would be in no doubt that they are (or consider themselves to be) Italian. However, I feel English. The project has worked out differently for me than it has for the more well dressed and stylish members of my family.

I suspect that I am a nationalist by some definitions of the concept but quite possible not by others. For instance there are concepts that I believe in passionately that I would not give up for the idea of the nation. I would not give my unconditional support to England under all circumstances, though it has usually been forthcoming.

There is a lot here to think about and, perhaps, others might like to wade in. For this reason I once again leave comments open.

In the comments Gareth points to this (Understanding Patriotism and Nationalism) which contains this attempt at a brief and easy to understand explanation:

The ordinate principle of nationalism is simply belief in the concept of "the nation".

There is nothing else implied politically by the term "nationalism".

To be a nationalist does not imply any particular political point of view other than a belief in the nation as a fundamental organising principle in politics.

If true then I find it even harder to comprehend any disdain in general for nationalism. Nationalism is as nationalism does the article says.

Commonwealth chums

Gareth notes the following from crikey.com, an Australian publication:

England has lost its way in the world
Show us how small is Man! Show us how easily this Universe can make matchwood of our dreams!

From murmurings emanating from Buckingham Palace over the years, the gradual but almost complete loss of English authority and influence within the Commonwealth is The Queen's singlemost regret of her reign. In the fifty plus years she has been on the throne she has seen her English Prime Ministers variously ignore, alienate and antagonise the rest of the Commonwealth

This is not the only issue that our Commonwealth chums have noticed. I am put in mind of the following from The Anglo Saxon Chronicle:

Australia attempts to save British Constitution

On the 14th January 2005 the House of Lords will debate the Second Reading of a Bill to amend the Act of Settlement and to repeal the Royal Marriage Act. Read the Bill here

The proposer of the Bill is Lord Dubs, a working Labour Peer and a member of the Executive of the Fabian Society.

Is it not the height of arrogance for the British Parliament to debate these matters without any regard for the consequences to the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms?

Despite the horrific cost, the National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, Philip Benwell MBE has written individually to Members of the House of Lords to remind their Lordships that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 requires: "that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent AS WELL OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF ALL THE DOMINIONS as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

Pay a visit to read the rest including Mr Benwell's letter to the House of Lords.

More here.

Oh oh

You know when you make a comment on someone's blog and you suddenly get this feeling that you are about to be severely mauled. Well, I got that feeling.

Anti-Americanism - I only see it on the news

This (via Melanie Phillips) should not go unchallenged:

Frankly, I don’t like what is happening in Britain and am shocked and dismayed at the level to which anti-Americanism has peaked in recent months.

I am not aware of this level of anti-Americanism in Britain and I certainly know that I would not behave in the way that the article describes.

Has anyone else witnessed or experienced this kind of attitude? Are there any American readers in the UK who see things differently?

England?

In my inbox yesterday morning, from the kind folks over at The Campaign for an English Parliament, was a pointer to this:

You can forget about the U.S. presidential election in November. That merely decides who'll run America. Something much more important is happening to England - something that could, incredible as it sounds, bring an end to that country as we know it.

In short, England in danger of being abolished. How could that happen? The answer lies in Britain's curious constitution, which makes England the only major democratic country in the world to be governed by foreigners.

The Englishman also carries this article.

The sorry truth of the matter, well pointed out by those at the CEP, is that England has no parliament of its own and the current danger is that representation will come, not in an equal manner to that given to the other countries in the United Kingdom, but instead by regionalising England. Bite sizing it, resulting in no real equal representation for the English and at the same time giving the government a great deal of copy to fall back on when having to answer The English Question. They will point out that they have recognised the problem and solved it in a way that gives representation to all the regions of England avoiding the issue of not having given real representation to the country as a whole.

An avoidance strategy that relies heavily upon the complete disinterest of the majority of the English which is, after all, the real tragedy of the issue. However, disinterest in the way government of the United Kingdom wishes to structure itself is no great surprise. Why should the average person actually care given that many can no longer even bare to get out and vote? Disinterest and a mistrust of the whole shooting match is par for the course these days and the general feeling of why should we actually care who is in power because they are all as bad as each other is one that does not seem to be in any danger of changing any time soon.

But, and this is the dirt of the matter, why do we not hear English MPs pressing the issue? Why do we not even hear them talking about an English parliament? They sit in English seats, put there by English voters and they are fully aware that, for instance, Scottish MPs are voting on English only issues whereas they themselves cannot vote on Scottish only issues.

Why are they not spitting teeth?

Bling

This I like:

And a snip at only £149 (gulp) from the Royal Mint. Will someone buy me one please? No?

You're all so cheap.

I am being taunted. Mark writes:

First a gay dog and now jewellery?

Someone's in touch with their feminine side alright!

I'm going to sulk. Erm, I mean, come here and say that.

On leaving Blighty

Laban Tall shows us that many native Brits are leaving these fair isles at a rate of knots:

The people leaving are middle class and educated. When my wife was organising a reunion for her Barts nursing trainees of 20 years ago, she found a quarter of them were living abroad, nearly all in the Antipodes or North America.

I’ve often thought about it, you know, leaving England.

People leave for all kinds of reasons but for me it would be that there are things that I would like to do that are simply against the law in this country. Indeed, my whole profession would almost certainly be different if I was, say, born in the USA. I wonder how many leave for similar reasons? Probably not many. It certainly doesn’t appear as a factor in the New Statesman article:

A survey in Emigrate magazine found that roughly three-quarters of potential emigrants think quality of life in Britain is deteriorating. The YouGov poll cited crime, council taxes, congested roads, lack of space. Eighty-five per cent thought Britain was "grinding to a halt". ICM added a few more reasons to be miserable: bad weather, long working hours, regional unemployment, high house prices. The Alliance & Leicester study found that the top reason for emigration was the search for a better quality of life, with work stress the main trigger, and destinations which place a "greater value on leisure and lifestyle" the most favoured. Among older people, the main reasons for moving abroad were climate and environment, pace of life, health, lower living costs, and "social advantages". What is also notable throughout such surveys is gloom and pessimism about Britain and the lack of attachment to the homeland.

These are reasons that we can all appreciate to some extent I think. The article also suggests that one of the things against which people are voting with their feet is enforced multiculturalism, which is interesting. Only the outward going Brits can tell us if that’s true and I expect a great deal of flack to be sent the way of the NS for even mentioning such a thing. It will disturb the sensibilities of a lot of easily disturbed people I think.

I find this mentioned lack of attachment to the homeland interesting. I wonder how much if it has to do with the way the education system teaches history. I think that Peter Hitchen's book, The Abolition of Britain goes into some detail on this. Certainly, when I was doing history, it was all about how bad the slave trade was and how dark and satanic the dark satanic mills of the industrial revolution were and very little in the way of blowing our own trumpets, if you know what I mean. Nah, probably nothing to do with it. More likely is that people just don't feel well represented anymore. Not appreciated. Pushed around. Used. That kind of thing makes you loose attachment pretty quickly.

Anyway, I think about leaving every now and again but I don't think that I can really afford the luxury. My family is settled and my parents are getting old and long gone are the days when I can think just of myself.

One of my sisters, on the other hand, has no such qualms. She left England over two years ago with her husband for, you know, tax reasons. They’ll be back some day. I hope.

How rude

In The Times Libbey Purves asks:

More and more this feels like a nation of bitter, insecure little tribes avid for bones to snarl over. Insults fly through the air: Snob! Trendy! Leftie! Tory Boy! Townie! Peasant! White-van man! Luvvie! Tree-hugger! God-botherer! Hack! Fat cat! Frump! Slapper! Lout! D-lister! It is as if, banned by law from uttering racial abuse, we seek to define ourselves by finding social, economic, pursuit or belief groups to despise. If public discourse is anything to go by, Britain is not so much a Big Tent as a sackful of enraged ferrets.
How did we get here?

I blame those wankers at the BBC.

The dubious English nation

Oh this is so very stupid it’s hard to know where to begin:

While the vast array of mysterious Neolithic monuments - most famously Stonehenge - are testimony to a history which stretches back as far as 4000BC, the indigenous people of England had been overrun by invaders many times before the 19th century, therefore making any concept of an English nation dubious.

That’s how UEFA thinks of the English. A dubious concept. It’s almost a tiny little Europe in its own right, what with all the invading and the like. Look, there, a Lambretta in London!!! See!!!

And Poland is nothing but a little Germany.

And France is nothing but a little Italy.

And Australia is nothing but a little England, which it can’t be because England is a little Europe. Man, imagine a UEFA official sitting in a bar in Sidney trying to explain to the clientele the ins and outs of how very French they really are. Australian nation? No bloody concept mate. Thwack.

The fact is, UEFA, the English are very much aware of their heritage. The English know what the Romans have done for them. They know all about William and his mates shooting off their arrows and the like. They know about the Vikings and their pillaging and they sure as hell know that they are not a people untouched by the bloodlines of the invader.

But of course UEFA feels the need to use this as a slur. Just like they do when they introduce all the other countries that took part in the Euro 2004 football competition. You know, all those other countries that have also had their populations blessed by a healthy dose of international loving. Except that they don’t do they. Why, I wonder?

When considering the English nation UEFA cries “dubious!”

When English thugs and vandals invade a football pitch UEFA cries “Look, the English! Again!”

What UEFA fails to understand is that a nation is not defined by the specific combination of DNA that makes it up. There is no standard red line of purity that sets apart those nations that are ‘dubious’ from those that are not.

They acknowledge the mix as ”the great casserole of Englishness” which is something I suppose, but there is nothing dubious about it.

Once more the banner of St George......

Who are these usurpers?

Not content with standing outside the Houses of Parliament waving their nationalistic flags and banners at passing politicians (who probably don’t know what that white one with the red cross in is all about anyway), they have the temerity to place a BlogAd on this site with the strap-line The Real England Project!

I should write a screed or some such and put them in their place but, to be honest, my heart is not in it. You see, the truth of the matter is that they are right.

We don’t want no stinkin’ piecemeal re-hash of what effectively is English local government. Not over here at the Fake England Project anyhow. Proper devolution to England, proper representation for the English and proper political recognition of England is what we want. Man, after thousands of years you would have thought we’d have that sussed by now. Just goes to show how it takes politicians to really screw things up eh?

So, why not go here and sign their petition while I accept my lesser roll, pack my things and go quietly into the night.

(Oh no you don’t – Ed).

What!?!!

NO!!!!!! Another British car manufacturer, another foreign owner. TVR is the company that decided to build its own engines rather than see a foreign unit fitted! Bugger, bugger, bugger!

Beer sales up

Weekly sales of beer from British supermarkets have doubled in the run-up to Euro 2004, research suggests.

Market specialists TNS said shoppers bought 23 million litres in one week in May - and this went up to 46 million litres before Euro 2004.

What's that in pints?

Integrated?

What do you make of this then?

I feel that the flying of the St George's flag should be banned. There has been such an upsurge in anti-Muslim sentiment, the flying of this racist flag will only make matters worse for everyone. Tony Blair should be brave and outlaw it. - Azim Khan, UK

Who are all these sinister people?

The BBC notes:

They are everywhere. It seems you cannot go down any street at the moment without seeing cars, shops, houses and pubs festooned with St George's flags.

But are these patriotic displays just an indication of support for the England squad in Euro 2004 or do they represent something else, perhaps something more sinister?

One would have to assume that if these things are everywhere (which they are, frankly) and if they represent something sinister we could and should be expecting a great deal of trouble in the not too distant future.

Nope, I’m not expecting any such thing either.