The British anomaly: The attempt to abolish England

From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-09-26 07:35

Ever heard of the West Lothian Question? West Lothian is the Scottish region immediately to the west of Edinburgh. The question is so called because it was first posed by Tam Dalyell, a Labor member of the British Parliament for West Lothian. Mr. Dalyell wondered how long the English would tolerate the situation in which Scottish members of the British Parliament, such as himself, have a (sometimes decisive) say about issues affecting only England, while English parliamentarians have no say about the same matters in Scotland.
 
In 1999, Tony Blair’s government installed a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. Similar parliaments have since been installed in Wales and Northern Ireland. This has led to the anomaly, pointed out by the “West Lothian Question,” that, while English members of the Parliament at Westminster have no say about Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish domestic affairs, parliamentarians from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have the power to vote on issues that affect just England.
 
Several proposals have been made to solve this anomaly. One of them is to abolish the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Another is to give England its own parliament, which would imply that the United Kingdom become a federation of four states – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
 
The solution proposed by the Labor government in Westminster, currently led by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (a Scot) and previously by Tony Blair (also a Scot), is to dissolve England by splitting it up into nine regions, each with their own parliamentary assembly. In a 2004 regional referendum, however, the voters in the Labor-dominated North East of England overwhelmingly rejected the plan to install an elected North East Assembly. Consequently, the British government shelved its plans for the other assemblies, but this means the West Lothian dilemma has still not been solved.
 
The whole issue has led to a rise of English nationalism. Though many English do not demand an English Parliament, since they consider the British parliament at Westminster to be their English parliament, the attempt to split up England has made them aware that Britain is being threatened and that the very survival of England is in jeopardy.
 
The Scottish National Party, the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, favors downright independence from the UK and wants Scotland to become a member of the European Union. Many Scottish Nationalists regard the EU as an enemy of the UK, hence their ally. The English, however, see the EU as a threat to the sovereignty of their, British, parliament at Westminster.
 
British politics is currently dominated by the question whether there should be a referendum about the new EU treaty, which attempts to ram through the European Constitution previously rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands. Polls indicate that a majority of the English want a referendum and are not prepared, like the French and the Dutch, to be cajoled into accepting the new treaty that is merely a rephrasing of the previously rejected Constitution.
 
Though Labor’s 2005 election manifesto promised a referendum on the issue, Mr. Brown intends to avoid one. For the English, however, the very essence of democracy is at stake. Some go so far as to say that if the EU forces its new treaty on Britain, the latter should secede from the EU. This is a position which Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Daily Telegraph would immediately adopt, if only he was sure that it would not lead to the collapse of the UK, pitting England against Scotland. “It is a very big risk, and perhaps the biggest single reason for sticking it out in the EU,” Mr. Evans-Pritchard writes.
 
In fact, this is the West Lothian Question writ large. If Scotland does not want to leave the EU while England does, some English, in order to save the UK, would subjugate Westminster to the EU.
 
Others, however, are prepared to give up the UK in order to save democracy in England. “I have never doubted that the existence of the United Kingdom was a benefit to England,” Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote in last week’s London Times. He adds, however, that the rise of English nationalism does not frighten him. “A healthy nationalism is the shield of liberty,” he writes, and he warns: “I do not think that Gordon Brown is English, or that he understands that English nationalism is just as attached to independence as Scottish.”

 
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on September 26, 2007 .

Dalriada yada-yada-yada

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2007-09-29 00:54.

Armor wrote:"Dalriada,ha!,ha!".

 

But,by 849,it was no laughing matter for the Picts.

 

[Quote] By 849,the last Pictish lord was dead...and Pictish  language and culture (had) died out too...

 

see: http://www.rampantscotland.com/know/blknow_dalriada.htm

 

Ah well,as some heartless Englishman  once said,History is a severe taskmaster.Just look at the example of Dalriada- yada-yada-yada...

In response to Armor,the First Earl of Cute

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-09-28 20:24.

I can't make up my mind whether your last post was vaguely fascinating,or fascinatingly vague.

 

Anyway,I found this on Wikipedia:

 

The etymology of the name Britain is thought to derive from the CELTIC word,Pritani...

 

Now,under the circumstances,I would have thought that you would be the last person to be complaining about this.

 

btw

 

Since when has the Breton plural of one isle,only meant two? 

Where's the other British Isle?

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-09-28 19:07.

I've found Pictland and Strathclyde on your map (and Dalriada, ha! ha!), but I can only see one British isle on the right and one big Irish isle on the left. Where's the other one?

Re: Cornwall

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-09-28 17:34.

Who were the Cornish and where are they now? Well,perhaps the following brief history lesson will shed some light on the subject.

 

Take a look at this map showing the British Isles,circa 802.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_isles_802.jpg

Next, find 'Pictland' and 'Strathclyde'.

(N.B. The Picts were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country we now call Scotland).

 

Finally,ask yourself the question,what happened to the Picts?

 

[Quote] "The descendants of the Picts are still with us today as much as they ever were...With the arrival and ascendance of the Scots,the Pict line gradually disappeared as a separate people in historical records- though the people did not disappear.This also happened to the ANGLES and the ancient BRITS of STRATHCLYDE,but THAT IS HOW NATIONS ARE BORN...Even those who didn't inter marry adapted the Scots culture,exchanged their language,(as other groups did),and were seamlessly integrated into the Scottish nation...[End Quote].

 

visit: http://www.albawest.com/picts.html

 

Perhaps the Cornish,like the Picts,haven't gone anywhere.They are "still with us as much today as they ever were".The Cornish are simply the Picts of modern day southern England. 

 

Like I said before,history is a severe taskmaster,and no amount of sentimental idealism will change that fact.

Re: Cornwall

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-09-28 01:12.

My gaff was to write gol instead of gof.It was a typo.You claim I had him quartered.He was quartered in 1497,not 1997.So,what's your excuse?

Re: Cornwall

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-09-28 00:39.

an Gof, not an Gol !

gof = blacksmith, in the Cornish (and Breton) language.

Even if you had him quartered, at least, you could make an effort to spell his name right.

Re: Cornwall

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-09-28 00:20.

Armor wrote: "When did Cornwall lose its right to be a nation?"

 

Answer: Probably 1497.

 

In 1497 an army of Cornishmen marched on London in protest against taxes levied by Henry VII to pay for a war against the SCOTS.They were DEFEATED at the battle of Deptford Bridge and leaders,including the blacksmith Michael An Gol,were hung,drawn and quartered.

 

History is a severe taskmaster.

 

 

Cornwall

Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-09-27 22:08.

BD: " The idea of a "Cornish nation" is laughable "

When did Cornwall lose its right to be a nation?

BD: " Most of the people who live in Cornwall are not "Cornish", and most of the "Cornish" don't live in Cornwall. "

It is only a very recent development. I suspect the Cornish population had remained stable for centuries. I think the real population replacement is taking place now, and it is not a good thing.

In Reply to Bob Doney & Atlanticist

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2007-09-27 14:52.

Au contraire, there is a Cornish nation, according to the Cornish at any rate. The Cornish are a Celtic people along with the Manx, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Bretons. Moreover, they have been recognised as being a separate nation since medieval times, not least due to linguistic differences. While the possibility for separatism remains low and there is a substantial Cornish diaspora, this does not alter the fact that they deserve to be considered a nation within the union like Wales is.

 

As far as Wessex is concerned, given that it is at least nominally Anglo-Saxon, if it developed any separatism this would be attributed to regionalism not nationalism.

 

If the Cornish are not a nation, perhaps we should revise our perspective on the Scots, Welsh and Irish and simply divide the British Isles between the English and the Celts.

Rise, my beloved Cornwall

Submitted by Bob Doney on Fri, 2007-09-28 08:40.

"according to the Cornish at any rate"

Oh come off it. You might just have been able to argue this 200 years ago. It's now fatuous nonsense. There are virtually NO people speaking Cornish as a first language, and haven't been for hundreds of years.

My family's history itself shows how meaningless this argument is: they've been hopping over the border to Plymouth and beyond, and marrying Devonians and suchlike for hundreds of years. In fact I spent the first five years of my life living in Cornwall, and my great-grandfather was in a considerable way of business in Penzance (what happened to the money? that's what I want to know!!!). Does this give me a stake in a Cornish nationhood. Of course it doesn't. As I said before, this one is strictly for the emmets.

www.porthemmet.com

And yes, genetic research shows plenty of folk in the smaller villages as being most likely to be from the stock of the original settlers when the ice last retreated. But that's true of many parts of rural England as well as Wales, etc. But to say that creates a "nation" is meaningless.

And to talk of "population replacement" in the context of Cornwall is as sensible as talking about "population replacement" in any other English county. There is still plenty of pride in the other English counties (in spite of successive governments trying to dismantle them), but to treat any of them as putative nations is just plain daft.

Re: Cornwall

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-09-28 16:02.

BD said: ""There are virtually NO people speaking Cornish as a first language, and haven't been for hundreds of years."

According to the wikipedia article, "the last known monoglot Cornish speaker is believed to have been Chesten Marchant, who died in 1676 at Gwithian."
Of course, knowing only the Cornish language would not be enough in today's Cornwall. It is the same in Iceland: they have to know English as well as Icelandic. However, the chain has not be broken. A number of Cornish people have continued to speak the language to this day, which is a remarkable achievement. It shows that they care about their country. Knowing English does not make you English. Many people continue to use English in India, but they are not English.

"My family's history itself shows how meaningless this argument is: they've been hopping over the border to Plymouth and beyond, and marrying Devonians and suchlike for hundreds of years."

But Devonians and Cornish people are basically the same people. If Cornwall wrestles independence from England, I hope it will annex Devon at once, and preferably Dorset and Somerset too. When did the celtic language disappear in Devon? Probably not so long ago. Devonians should reembrace their cornishness.

"And to talk of "population replacement" in the context of Cornwall is as sensible as talking about "population replacement" in any other English county."

What you say is that there is no Cornish distinctiveness, and I think you are wrong. I hear the same about Brittany which is said to have been irredeemably frenchified. Anyway, since you refuse to see the difference between Britons and third world immigrants, I don't expect you to see any difference between the English and the Cornish.

What is happening in Cornwall is that the local population leaves for England, and is replaced by English people (who are probably fleeing London and other English towns). People are only shuffled around, it is not the same as the third world invasion of Europe. Nevertheless, it means that Cornwall will no longer be Cornish in the near future.

We tend to think that the destruction of our identities is unavoidable and has to do with modernity, but Iceland (on a volcanic rock, in the middle of cold water) is richer than Cornwall, and has been able to maintain its language even though its population (310,000) is smaller than Cornwall's (520,000). If Iceland had been invaded by the English, there would be little left of their language, and their standard of living would be lower.

"There is still plenty of pride in the other English counties"

In "other" English counties, there isn't a long political tradition of opposing the local identity to the English identity (not even by a handful of local eccentrics).

" (in spite of successive governments trying to dismantle them) "

If you'd like to do something to preserve the identity of English counties, I suggest you join the anti immigration movement.
But in the case of Cornwall (and Devon), the best way to preserve their identity is to declare independence (preferably today - it's urgent).

Domination and lovely ladies

Submitted by Bob Doney on Thu, 2007-09-27 09:55.

"British politics is currently dominated by the question whether there should be a referendum about the new EU treaty, which attempts to ram through the European Constitution previously rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands. "

 "Currently dominated"? Would that it were, Paul! Gordon Brown is counting on the apathy of most of the electorate to see off this little distraction (i.e. the future existence of our nation), and he's probably right.

 Even the Sun newspaper's attempt to liven up the issue with a bus-load of scantily clad lovelies seems to have been met with a profound indifference.

 

Previously I would have

Submitted by THE DOCTOR on Wed, 2007-09-26 21:37.

Previously I would have defended the Union , however now I would be delighted if Scotland would leave the Union and any others who want to leave to . England could then leave the E.U. and far for some of the peoples fears , we cold go it alone . The probable out come is that England would find itself at the centre of a new trading block composed of the English speaking peoples , contrary to popular belief a great many countries still regard England as the Mother Country .

Errors - British Federation?

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2007-09-26 15:24.

Unfortunately, Mr. Belien is mistaken when he states that if Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England each had their own national assemblies or devolved governments that this would "imply that the United Kingdom become a federation of four states".

 

The UK is not a federation; rather it is a unitary state, meaning that authority and power are held by the central government and that this government can delegate and withdraw powers from devolved states as it pleases. In the UK, this has been exemplified by the regular suspension of Northern Ireland's National Assembly.

 

Not only do the devolved states not have a full portfolio (as noted in a previous post on this thread), but they exist at the whim of London. Scotland's secession depends on the rest of Britain allowing it. Moreover, there is no thought of a devolved state for Cornwall, despite that the Cornish constitute an ethnic nation. 

Cornish

Submitted by Bob Doney on Thu, 2007-09-27 10:11.

"despite that the Cornish constitute an ethnic nation. "

No they don't. That is nonsense. Most of the people who live in Cornwall are not "Cornish", and most of the "Cornish" don't live in Cornwall.

You will of course have immediately recognised that my name is Cornish, although my parents had already "emigrated" to Devon. The Doneys were very numerous in the Liskeard/Bodmin Moor area, and a lot of my ancestors are apparently buried at North Hill on the moor.

The idea of a "Cornish nation" is laughable, and is just promulgated to please the tourists and a few local eccentrics. Like the pasties.

Scottish Parliament

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2007-09-26 14:16.

"while English members of the Parliament at Westminster have no say about Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish domestic affairs…"

In fact, they still have their say. Here's what I found in wikipedia:

Matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament include:

agriculture, fisheries and forestry, economic development, education, environment, food standards, health, home affairs, Scots law - courts, police and fire services, local government, sport and the arts, transport, training, tourism, research and statistics and social work.

"Reserved matters" kept outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament include:

abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system.

Reserved & Devolved Matters