Category Archives: English identity

CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY

Our press release:-

The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “St George has been the Patron Saint of England since 1325. As the emblem Saint of our Nation we English, as a proud and historic Nation, should celebrate with gusto on Wednesday, 23rd.”

Robin continued:- “ Our English flag should be flying high on every flagpole in England upon St George’s Day!”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
English Democrats’ FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org
Chairman’s FB
Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002. The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party which campaigns for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK)

Complaint against the Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee

After I had submitted evidence to the House of Lords “Constitution Committee” chaired by Baroness Jay, I found that none of the English groups that had given evidence are to be called to give oral evidence.

It is no surprise that a Committee chaired by the daughter of Jim Callaghan would be biased and anti-English but that is no reason not to protest!

So I complained to the House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards. Here is the correspondence.

What do you think?

My initial letter to House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards dated 20th March 2014

Dear Commissioner for Standards

Re: Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee

The English Democrats and two other English groups (the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament) put in submissions to the “Scottish Independence: Constitutional: Implication for the rest of the UK” Inquiry by the House of Lords “Constitution Committee”.

None of the English submissions were called in for oral submissions, which I find suspicious as to the Committee’s agenda and whether or not it has behaved in an open, transparent and proper manner, both under the Code of Conduct and also under the Equalities Act 2010.

The members of the Committee are as follows:-

Baroness Jay of Paddington (Chair) – Labour

Lord Crickhowell – Conservative

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk – Crossbench

Baroness Falkner of Margravine – Liberal Democrat

Lord Goldsmith – Labour

Lord Hart of Chilton – Labour

Lord Irvine of Lairg – Labour

Lord Lang of Monkton – Conservative

Lord Lester of Herne Hill – Liberal Democrat

Lord Lexden – Conservative

Lord Powell of Bayswater – Crossbench

Baroness Wheatcroft – Conservative

I note from their entries in the House of Lord’s website, that none of them appear to have either made a registration or a declaration of interest relevant to this inquiry. It is obvious that, in such an inquiry, their national identity is a relevant interest in the context of the matter under discussion, to use the words of paragraph 82 of the Code of Conduct.

I submit that it is also in a category of “Interest” which although possibly non-financial (depending where their property is) but, in any event, is an “Interest” that ought to be Registered and/or Declared.

I consider that the members (apropos paragraph 7) should have conducted this Inquiry based on considerations of public interest and the public interest does of course include compliance with the Equality Act.

Regarding section 9) c) the conduct of the Committee does not meet the standard of objectivity in carrying out public business, nor do the responses that I have received from the Committee’s Clerk (copies of this correspondence I enclose), comply with the section 9) e) requirement of openness about the decisions that they took – in this case to exclude all English representation from the discussion.

Considering that the English represent some 90% of the population of the UK and over 60% (over 32 million) of them have declared themselves to be of ‘English Only’ national identity in the 2011 Census results, it is obvious that no inquiry into the constitutional implications for the rest of the UK could be properly conducted without English opinion being fully taken into account.

I submit that failure to register and/or declare their national identity is a breach of 10) a) and that as a reasonable member of the public I consider that under paragraph 11 national identity interests in this question would be thought by any reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which the members of this Committee have discharged their parliamentary duties in the case of the Committee, in respect of the particular matter under discussion.

As the Clerk has declined to answer my questions, I am unable to focus this complaint on the individual members of the Committee who have acted to the detriment of a proper discussion on this issue. I would therefore ask you to enquire into the answers to my Equality Act questions and also to determine whether there has been a breach or breaches of the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct in respect of each and every Committee member.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

Enc.

Letter dated 26th March 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Dear Mr Tilbrook

I am writing in response to your letter of complaint dated 20th March 2014 (your ref RT/37).

Your letter is headed “Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee”. My remit is limited to investigating complaints against members of the House of Lords, not the staff of the House. This reply therefore addresses your letter only as it applies to the members of the Constitution Committee.

I have carefully considered the points you make and my preliminary assessment is that your complaint does not meet the criteria set out in the House of Lords Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct.

The first element of your complaint appears to be that the English Democrats, the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament were not invited to give oral evidence to the Constitution Committee. The Code of Conduct relates to members of the House of Lords individually, and not to a select committee’s collective decisions. There is no provision in the Code about committees inviting oral or written evidence; this element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit and does not relate to an alleged breach of the Code.

The second element of your complaint seems to be that the members of the Constitution Committee have not registered or declared their national identity as an interest relevant to the Constitution Committee’s inquiry into “Scottish independence: constitutional implications for the rest of the UK”. Members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement in the Code for members to register on the Register of Lord’s Interests their national identity. Nor is there a requirement in wider British law for individuals to declare a national identity. I considering whether members of the committee should declare their national identity I must assess whether that would be considered by a reasonable member of the public as relevant to the subject-matter of the committee’s inquiry. In this case the inquiry is into certain constitutional implications for the rest of the UK of any “yes” vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The committee’s call for evidence states that the inquiry is covering the conduct of potential negotiations; the position of assets and liabilities, and shared services of the UK; and implications of the UK Parliament. The call for evidence states that the committee’s inquiry is focussed. At no point does it indicate that the committee is exploring questions of national identity or citizenship matters. I therefore conclude that this element of the complaint does not demonstrate a prima facie breach of the Code.

The third element of your complaint appears to be that members of the committee have not complied with the Equality Act 2010. My remit is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. That element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit.

In the light of the above I do not intend to investigate your complaint. However, if you can provide further evidence of a specific breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct, I am prepared to examine that material.

Yours sincerely

Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Commissioner for Standards

My letter to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN, Commissioner of Standards dated the 31st March 2014

Dear Mr Kernaghan

Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee

Thank you for your letter of the 26th March and for responding so promptly.

As you have dealt with our complaint in what you have labelled as three “elements” and indicated that you think that the first and third elements are outside your jurisdiction, I will concentrate on the second element.

I must admit I am somewhat surprised with your response to the second element, since it seems to me absolutely obvious that the national identity of individuals is probably the most relevant interest that they could have in an Inquiry of the nature that the Constitutional Committee is inquiring into.

There may not be any specific requirement in the Code for Members to register their national identity. My point is however that in inquiring into Scottish Independence: Constitutional Implications for the Rest of the UK, it is obvious that any reasonable member of the public would regard the individual Committee Member’s national identity as being of utmost relevance to the subject matter of the Committee’s inquiry.

This is especially so when it is realised that there is no constitutional validity to the idea of the “rest of the UK” being an automatically continuing constitutional entity if Scotland become Independent, as was made plain in both my submission and in that of the only other submission made by a practising lawyer dealing with this concept, Judge Ian Burns Campbell. I enclose a copy of my submission.

In the event that Members of the Committee seek to use their position to give substance to a constitutionally bogus idea such as “rest of the UK”, it would be of great interest to know their national identity.

It would also be of some interest to know whether the Committee adequately reflects the proportion of national identity across the current UK. From what I can see of the background of the Committee Members it would appear there are relatively few who would have any interest in or desire to speak for England – because of their national identity!

At a time when the 2011 Census results show that over 60% of the population of England, that is over 32 million people, regard themselves as having English Only national identity it would certainly be of considerable relevance to know whether there are in fact any Members of the House of Lords Constitutional Committee that have English Only national identity. At the very least, in my respectful submission, what Members should have done and should now be required to do is to make a Declaration of Interest so far as this inquiry is concerned, and, indeed, any other Inquiries that relate to devolution or to the independence of any of the constituent nations of the UK State.

In light of the above I do hope that you will take the necessary action to require the Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee to make a Declaration of Interest of their respective national identities.

Whilst writing I would remind you that National Identity under the Equality Act is a different concept to racial group or ethnicity. It is the concept of which national group an individual self-identifies with. It is that very element of self-identity which means that any reasonable member of the public would want to know the National Identity of each Committee Member in order to understand what the Committee Member’s views are likely to be on any relevant national question as the UK moves towards this dissolution.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

Enc.

Letter dated 9th April 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your letter dated 31 March 2014.

I have carefully considered the points you raise but have decided to screen out your complaint.

The Guide to the Code of Conduct provides guidance on non-financial interests in some detail. Paragraph 90 lists non-financial interests that are not normally registered but which it may be necessary to declare in certain circumstances. Amongst these are “membership of Churches or other religious bodies or organisations”. There is no mention of “national identity”. As I have previously advised you, members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement for committees of the House to consider “national identity” when calling witnesses. As mentioned in my previous letter, “national identity” is not covered in the call for evidence for the Constitution Committee’s inquiry. Thus I do not consider that any member of that committee has breached the Code of Conduct by not declaring their national identity.

Yours sincerely

Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Commissioner for Standards

My letter dated 11th April 2014 to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN

Dear Mr Kernaghan

Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee

Thank you for your letter of the 9th April. With respect you have demonstrated the inadequacy both of your role and of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. For it not to be an admissible complaint that members of the committee have failed to declare their national identity when conducting an inquiry into an issue where national identity plays a key role is simply the stuff of a classic Whitehall farce!

You have nicely demonstrated the rottenness of the current system of crony appointments by the British Political Establishment to our Upper Legislative Chamber.

The sooner the British Unionist State is dissolved and England has a proper and fully democratically elected legislature the better!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Re: English Independence gaining traction!

           Re: English Independence gaining traction!

The Independence campaign has moved on and up, now  that one of the leading English intellectuals, Prof Roger Scruton, has come out for English Independence. 

Click here>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pov .

Here is a transcript of what Prof. Scruton said:-

“In all the complex changes leading to the Scottish bid for independence the English have never been consulted. The process has been conducted as though we had no right to an opinion in the matter. It was all about Scotland and how to respond to Scottish nationalism.

As an Englishman I naturally ask why my interests in the matter have never been taken in to account. When the Czechs and Slovaks achieved their amicable divorce it was by mutual agreement between elected politicians. What is so different about Scotland that it decides everything for itself.

The Union of England and Scotland was formerly declared in the Act of Union in 1707 but it had been an emerging reality throughout the preceding century. In the conditions and conflicts of those days it was impossible for the two nations to regard themselves as fundamentally distinct. They shared an island, a religion, a language and a Monarch and both had its vows to the protestant cause. It is true there was a border between them and things one side of the border were not always replicated on the other. Scots law remains a separate system from the English. Styles of dress, architecture, popular entertainment and speech were for a long time quite distinct, in part because of the striking difference in climate and since the Reformation organised religion has taken a very different form in the two countries. The lowland Scots opting for the Calvinist and Presbyterian version and remaining largely hostile to the elaborate episcopal offices that appeal to the English. But the differences were less important than the history and geography that held the two nations together. It is true that the Union was resented by the Highlanders, many of whom had retained their Catholic faith, their Gallic language and their loyalty to the deposed Stuart Kings. The cruel suppression of the Jacobite rebellions, the forbidding of the tartan, the persecution of the Catholics and the expulsion of the crofters from their homes, all these things are well known and don’t cast credit, either on the English or on the Lowlanders, who principally benefitted from the Union.

Nevertheless during the years of Empire building merchants from both countries combined to reap the benefits of British naval power and to explore the far corners of the earth in search of profit and in their wake they brought the imperial government that they shared. Moreover empire building had to be backed up by military force. The Napoleonic wars sealed the Union between the Scots and the English who happily adopted Great Britain as the name of their united country.

Neither people could have survived the wars of the 20th Century had they not fought side by side and with total commitment to the Union. As a result of those wars however, the Empire was lost and an entirely new political landscape emerged from beneath the smoke. It is no longer possible for us to see the Union as it was seen throughout the course of the 19th Century as something natural and unquestionable. The enterprise that joined us has vanished. So too we hope have the military threats. Each nation is, for the time-being at least, wrapped in its own internal problems.

It can be said that the Scots are still reeling from the effect of Margaret Thatcher’s radical economic policies and her introduction of the Poll Tax. They are bound to ask themselves whether they have had a fair share of the prosperity that is visible nearly everywhere in the south of England and the English tend to blame the migrations that threaten to overwhelm them on a succession of Labour Governments by allowing mass immigration into England and refusing to confront the European Union’s commitment to the free movement of peoples.

The Governments of Blair and Brown seriously undermined the English sense of identity. At the same time through the creation of a Scottish Parliament they gave a new identity to the Scots. The effect of the Scottish Parliament however, was not only to ensure the Scots would govern themselves, but also to make it more likely that they would continue to govern the English. The Labour Party did not want to lose those Scottish MPs, since it was thanks to them and the Scottish vote that the Labour Party had achieved such a large majority in Westminster. Scots were disproportionately represented in the cabinets of both Blair and Brown. Tony Blair owed his position in the Labour hierarchy in part to the networks that had grown in that country. Elections to the Scottish Parliament showed that the Scots had shifted their allegiance from Labour to the SNP, but they still want the English to be governed by the Labour Party. Hence they vote to place Labour politicians, who they don’t particularly want at home, in Westminster.

As a result of this the English, who have voted Conservative more often than Labour in all post-war elections have to accept a block vote of Labour Members of Parliament sent to Westminster by the Scots. The process that brought this about was one which the Scots themselves were given the final say in a referendum from which the English were excluded. In other words the process of devolution has an air of gerrymandering. The effect of which has been to secure a Labour bias in the Westminster Parliament while allowing the Scots to govern themselves in whatever way they choose. And the process continues. In response to Alex Salmond’s bid for independence the people of Scotland have been granted another referendum, but again the people of England have been deprived of a say. Why is this? Are we part of the Union or not? Or are the politicians afraid that we would vote the wrong way? And what is the wrong way? What way should we English vote, given that the present arrangement gives two votes to the Scots for every vote given to the English. Should we not vote for our independence given that we risk being governed from a country that already regulates its own affairs and has no clear commitment to ours?

The Scottish economy is subsidised by the English, but this does not mean that England would be better off without Scotland. You give subsidies to your dependents because you depend on them. Subsidies are also investments which have returns in the long run but they more than justify the cost. On the other hand it could be that the Scottish economy has suffered from the Union overall. Boswell attributes to Dr Johnson the remark that “the noblest prospect that a Scotsman ever sees is the high road that leads him to England”. Johnson’s purpose was to ridicule the romantic adulation of the Scottish landscape which was all the rage at the time, except perhaps among those that have to live there. But he touched without intending it on the principle cause of Scotland’s economic problems which is the loss of human capital. Educated Scots have constantly taken Dr Johnson’s high road to England, carrying with them their knowledge and their energy and investing it outside the borders of their homeland. In just the way that the EU is syphoning away the young middle class from Poland and the Czech Republic so that our union served to deprive the Scots of some of the people that their economy most needs.

The security that we have enjoyed in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought with it a certain complacency in the matter of Defence. During the Cold War the Scottish land mass was absolutely fundamental to our strategy and our nuclear deterrent is housed in Scottish waters. And the Scottish air bases were constantly called upon to deter Soviet violations in our air space. Scottish regiments are at the forefront of our campaigns today and without them we would be much less capable of defending ourselves in a serious crisis.

In my opinion defence is the sole reason for thinking that the break-up of the Union might be bad for both our countries. The Union would have to replaced by a strong and committed alliance but I think this would happen just as the colonial administration of America transformed itself in time into the Western Alliance which brings the British and the Americans together and fighting side by side in every major crisis.

Suppose then we English were finally allowed a say in the matter. Which way would I vote? I have no doubt about it. I would vote for English independence as a step towards strengthening the friendship between our countries. It was thanks to independence that the Americans were able at last to confess to their attachment to the old country and to come to our aid in two World Wars. Independence is what real friendship requires and the same is true for those like the Scots and English who live side by side.”

Guest speaker at Kings College School, Wimbledon

On Thursday I was the guest of Kings College School, Wimbledon, which is a non-boarding public school.  For those who do not know Wimbledon it is in a very nice part of what is now in effect West London.

As a guest speaker I was following in the footsteps of MPs from the various other parties, including not only the usual ones, but also the SNP and Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

I had been asked to come to talk to the Sixth Form about the politics of English culture and nationalism.

I introduced the topic by going through our exceptionally long history as a united people and nation state.  After the constitutional landmarks I then talked about where we are now using the results of the 2011 Census.

I then got so many interesting questions that I didn’t get to make the speech that I had prepared to make.

It was however interesting to again see from some of the questions that the main challenge to English Nationalism comes from those whose vision is of multi-cultural “Britishness”.

It was nice to be able to reassure those who thought of themselves as being English that theirs is still the majority view in England by showing them the results of the 2011 Census.

For those who consider themselves to be in national identity terms “British only” but who are ethnically English, it was also a pleasure to be able to assure them that they were in a tiny minority in the country!  They are now of course a minority within that minority of less than 30% who consider themselves to be in any sense British!

The case for a policy of Independence for England

 
At our Conference and AGM on the 21st September 2013 in Leicester the English Democrats will be debating the following resolution:-

“The English Democrats believe that England should again be an independent nation state and we will campaign to that end.
The English Democrats demand that a referendum be held for the People of England to decide whether England should become independent again and cede from the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

Here is the accompanying paper in support. What do you think?

The case for a policy of Independence for England

By Derek Hilling and Leon Martin 

After more than a decade since the advent of devolution within the United Kingdom, the British government refuses to recognise the legitimate concerns of the people of England regarding the unfairness of the devolution settlement. In that period nothing whatsoever has been done to address the concerns of the English, who believe that they are paying for yet receiving none of the benefits of devolution. The main political parties refuse to even discuss these concerns and some of their leaders even deny the very existence of England as a separate nation. In light of this outright intransigence the English Democrats believe that the time has come to promote the cause and principles of English Independence. This means that England should break-away from the United Kingdom, and once again become an independent nation state.

The English Democrats are calling for a referendum on this matter so that the people of England may be given a choice to determine their own future.

The English Democrats start from the basic principle that the English Nation is entitled to self-determination and its people are entitled to citizenship of that nation. England’s membership of the United Kingdom denies us expression of these entitlements.

The leaders of all the main political parties conspired to create devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but did nothing to offer the same rights to the people of England.

The consequence of devolution has been that the people of England now suffer from unfair distribution of the resources of the United Kingdom. We pay more than our fair share of taxes but receive less than our fair share of the resources. It is clear that this injustice will never be righted until the people of England break-free from the shackles of the United Kingdom.

The benefits of England becoming are independent country are that:

An immediate cessation of England’s membership of the European Union , saving £billions in contributions;

English business would be free from the E.U.’s bureaucratic red tape;

England would regain control over our own borders, ending the unchecked immigration that the E.U. has fostered;

English People would be able to promote their historic culture and identity which has been denied them by the British state;

We would promote an English cultural renaissance and give our people a sense of pride in who they are and what they have achieved;

English customs and manners are valued as part and parcel of the fabric of our culture and could be promoted as the public culture of England;

England would be free from the need to subsidise both the rest of the UK as well as large parts of Europe;

England could broaden its trading relations with all countries, especially the emerging economies in Latin America and Asia; we have become too reliant on Europe which is in the grip of economic paralysis.

If the people of England decide that we should become independent, then an English Government would be formed so as to conduct negotiations with the Scottish Government and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, as to the division of the debts of the United Kingdom. England cannot be expected to go on forever subsidising those who cannot pay their own way.

We believe that the best way for the people of England to improve their living standards and achieve the national unity and social cohesion that we all want is for England to become an independent nation. The English Democrats are convinced that a free and independent England will be able to rid itself of the scourge of debt and release the talents of its people to create a strong and vibrant economy. 

England to be allowed its own national identity?

Today there is an interesting article, published in “The Scotsman”, which shows an encouraging glimmer of understanding that there is the potential for a winning synergy between Scottish and English Nationalism:-

“Reform requires us to address a crisis of identity”
By George Kerevan

“Lasting constitutional change will need co-operation from a sovereign, confident England – which does not exist”

REGULAR readers will know that I occasionally tilt against the failure of the SNP to hold a public debate on key aspects of post-independence policy. So you might think I sympathise with the recent call by Michael Moore, the mild-mannered Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland, for the SNP to say “exactly what independence would involve”. Indeed, the first question Mr Moore wants the SNP to answer is: “What regulation would be applied to our banks and who would enforce it?”

But Mr Moore speaks with a very forked tongue. For a start, he gave his speech on the day his party colleague, Vince Cable, was fulminating over Chancellor George Osborne’s decision to kick bank reform into the long grass. So Michael, can I ask what financial regulation your coalition agrees on, and when will it happen?

In the recent (lost) AV referendum, the tactic used successfully by the opponents of a fairer voting system was to harp on that the alternate vote system had not been fully explained. Rather than argue their own case, they implied the other side was not coming clean about theirs. Sadly, Mr Moore has adopted the same cynical tactic.

However, Mr Moore commits an even bigger sin – he can’t see the political wood for the trees. For the issue before the Scottish electorate is not independence. Alex Salmond is shouting through a political megaphone that he wants a referendum with three questions: the break-up of the UK, fiscal autonomy (de facto Home Rule), or the creaking status quo. Does anyone disagree on the likely outcome?

The SNP has stated unambiguously that in any constitutional settlement it will keep the pound sterling and share common (but non-nuclear) defence arrangements with England. What is that but Home Rule as the Liberal government defined it in 1914, when it enacted a Scottish Home Rule Bill at Westminster (only to see it shelved when the Great War broke out)?

So why is Mr Moore fixated by independence? Because he and his ilk view the SNP in isolation rather than as part of a general crisis of Britishness. The rise of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the savage Troubles in Northern Ireland and the growth of populist and semi-fascist currents in England are all part of the same political mosaic. The British state, its economy and civic identity were the product of Empire. Two world wars, ensuing bankruptcy and de-colonialisation demolished this imperial project and, with it, a common notion of Britishness.

In Scotland, the end of Empire led a new generation in the 1960s to reinvent themselves as Scottish rather than British. This was accelerated by the indifference of London to the collapse of Scottish heavy industry. A similar, if diluted, process began in Wales.

In the forgotten Bantustan of Northern Ireland, the economic decline of the old Protestant ascendancy combined with the blind ignorance of Westminster to ensure a violent reaction by the Orange “British” working class.

In only one part of the UK was the appearance of a modern, post-imperial national identity thwarted – England. The big London parties allied to brand any manifestation of Englishness as culturally regressive, politically irrelevant or borderline racist. Why? The Tories were reluctant to recognise the end of Empire, while Labour feared a loss of electoral influence. This is a great shame, for the roots of Englishness lie in the rule of law and individual freedom.

By ignoring Englishness, the big parties grew blind to the need to reform the British constitution at root. Yet the evolution of politics, culture and economics over the past 50 years means that our national identities – Scots, Welsh, Irish and English – are not going to fuse into a homogeneous whole – quite the opposite. Which implies that we still need a new, post-imperial compact between these sovereign peoples if we are to make the British Isles congenial. The SNP is offering such a compact, if only Mr Moore and others will listen.

Of course, Mr Salmond does not use the words Home Rule or confederation. Spotting this, some Unionist politicians, including the normally sensible Menzies Campbell, have called on Mr Salmond to come clean that he has abandoned the SNP’s long-cherished goal in favour of “diet-independence”. But Mr Salmond is never going to use this formulation, and asking him to is tantamount to rejecting the SNP’s offer of Home Rule. First, Mr Salmond is too smart a politician to give up the threat of separation before he gets what he really wants. Second, he will not risk any division in the SNP’s ranks before he has delivered something tangible by way of fiscal autonomy.

But can Mr Salmond deliver Home Rule or will the SNP split? My reckoning is that the majority of party members view fiscal autonomy as the litmus test of sovereignty, not embassies or flags. The keeper of the fundamentalist flame, Jim Sillars, has already shifted to a more pragmatic position, preferring to remove any implied threats to English interests that might hinder the transfer of de facto sovereignty to Holyrood. Besides, internal resistance to Mr Salmond has long since been dissipated by the massed phalanx of MSPs and their paid advisers.

There are those in the SNP – like me – who doubt if a workable confederation with England will emerge, though I’m willing to give it a try. My view is that the Unionist political establishment – witness Mr Moore – is totally capable of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Even if Mr Salmond wins fiscal autonomy, lasting constitutional reform can only work inside an agreed framework of co-operation – on interest rates and security policy – between the sovereign nations of these British Isles.

But that implies a sovereign English parliament as equal partner rather than a grudging, dominant Westminster. And a sovereign, confident England does not exist. For the same Unionist parties that have put up a fighting retreat in front of Scottish nationalism are the very ones that have also refused to develop a modern, liberal English nationalism.”

Here is the Article on the Scotsman’s site
http://www.scotsman.com/politics/George-Kerevan-Reform-requires-us.6829467.jp?articlepage=1

A brief biopic of the author is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kerevan

I think that you will agree at least a glimmer of hope there but unfortunately still in the media conditioned mindset of thinking of English Nationalism as a threat.

Meanwhile, on the BBC News Politics site,we can see how very limited is the British Establishment’s interest in fair treatment for England.

Mark D’Arcy, the BBC’s Parliamentary correspondent in his “Viewing guide: The pick of the week ahead in Parliament” says:-

“Friday is private members bill day in the Commons, and topping the bill is the Report Stage debate on the Conservative backbencher Harriet Baldwin’s Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill. This takes a stab at giving a partial answer to the West Lothian Question by requiring that in future all bills put before Parliament should contain a clear statement of how they affect each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – including knock-on financial implications. She hopes that this would allow it to become accepted practice that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not vote on England-only Bills. The Government attitude is interesting, to put it mildly. The Coalition Agreement includes a promise to set up a commission to look at the West Lothian Question (the issue of MPs from devolved parts of the UK being able to vote on English issues, when English MPs can’t vote on the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) but that commission has yet to be set up. Ministers clearly don’t want the Baldwin bill, and she can expect pressure to withdraw it.

Having, somewhat to her own surprise, piloted the Bill through the the most perilous stage of the parliamentary life-cycle, the Second Reading debate, and through Committee where it was unamended, (although that may owe something to the broken leg suffered by Labour constitutional affairs spokesman Chris Bryant) Harriet Baldwin can now hope to send it off to the Lords. The main way of preventing this would be for opponents to put down a deluge of amendments at Report Stage – and talk out the available debating time. We shall see.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14737976

Which all goes to show that if England and the English Nation are ever to get fair treatment it will only be because there is a credible English Nationalist party forcing the pace!