ARE THE BNP TRYING TO HIJACK ENGLISH IDENTITY?
As the leaflet at the top of this article shows, the Campaign for an English Parliament locates itself firmly in the democratic, political mainstream celebrating the inclusive, multi-cultural nature of modern England. An opinion poll earlier this year recorded that 67% of the population favour there being an English parliament. Yet, there seems very little interest on the left in this democratic demand
Partly this may be explicable by the historical enthusiasm of the Labour Party for the Union. This most significantly developed under Harold Wilson and his Secretary of State for Scotland, Willie Ross, who recognised that every radical parliamentary majority, including their own, relied upon the overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales in Westminster, and the Labour voting majority in those nations. (This is no longer true, and Tony Blair has achieved Labour majorities in England). There is a belief in the Labour Party that an English parliament would inevitably weaken the role of the British parliament in Westminster, so much so that the dissolution of the UK would follow, and from right to left, Labour is a Unionist party.
But this “instrumental unionism” of the Labour party, is also reinforced by a lack of interest in constitutional affairs from the radical left, and a certain disdain for any politics related to national identity.
The present constitutional arrangement in the United Kingdom provides separate parliaments or assemblies in Scotland, Wales and the Six Counties of Ireland under British rule. But England has no parliament, and it is common for Labour politicians to deny even the existence of England as a nation, referring instead to the UK as being a union of nations and regions.
This results in the so-called West-Lothian question where policies which only affect England are voted through the Westminster parliament by Labour MPs representing Scottish, Irish and Welsh constituencies, even though English MPs have no say on equivalent policies for the Celtic nations.
And Wales and Scotland, through their devolved parliaments, have rejected some of the worst aspects of Blairism. For example, in Wales, there are no NHS prescription charges. In Scotland smaller class sizes, and greater emphasis on teaching rather than testing has led to pupils being 50 per cent more likely to progress to higher education. As a result more than 37 per cent go to college or university compared with just 25 per cent of English students. And Scottish schoolchildren are also up to a third more likely to get good grades at age sixteen.
There is therefore a growing campaign for an English parliament, and devolution is fuelling a re-emergence of a distinct English national consciousness, although this is most evidently manifesting itself in the form of Sports patriotism.
The danger is that the debate resulting from these anomalies will focus upon resentment of the Scots and Welsh, and that the right wing will benefit. For example, , Kelvin Mackenzie recently wrote in The Sun: “It is the political issue for England and there is a great prize for Cameron if he can prove to the poor of the northeast, northwest and parts of London that he will look after them rather than the overfunded, feather-bedded Scots”.
The nature of English national identity is of course contested. England is a nation where class difference, them and us, is at the heart of our self-awareness, and this is reflected in how we experience national identity.
George Schöpflin argues that the English subordinate ethnicity to class, which explains why there are such strongly competing notions of Englishness, the radical England of Billy Bragg, and the conservative England of Roger Scruton. As Schöpflin argues our national consciousness being dominated by class rather than ethnicity “has helped to make the country relatively open to migrants, exiles and other foreigners”
Now the demand for an English parliament is a basic democratic demand, and is one that the left should support. But what is interesting is that a lot of people who are far from the political left also defend the idea of a civic and inclusive rather than ethnic and exclusive basis for Englishness. It is important for the left to recognise that the concept of a non-racialised, national identity is a bulwark against chauvinism, not a concession to it. For example, the conservative blogger An Englishman’s Castle writes:
“…the England I believe in is a Taurean, placid, tolerant place - bucolic and green; but when tweaked capable of violence and rage. Not a nation founded on race but on a common culture, respects and language. Not constrained by geography, creed, breeding or birth - open to all who wish to belong.”
As Gareth Young of the Campaign for an English parliament wrote:
“I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that all people in England, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion, should be treated as constitutional equals by the UK government. That is the England that I want, and that is what the English parliament will embody because that is the English way. The CEP will continue to make the case for an English parliament on the grounds of democracy and fair representation in the knowledge that all English people (including those that don’t consider themselves English but nevertheless call England home) are disadvantaged by England’s subordinate constitutional status in the UK.”
There is an important battle ground opening up therefore, because the fascists of the BNP are beginning to realise that English disenfranchisement is an issue that they can exploit. The ideological content of Englishness, whether it is a civic identity or ethnic identity is therefore becoming contested.
The BNP have a very different agenda,and in the October issue of their magazine “Identity” David Hannam advocates the BNP becoming English nationalists, for pragmatic reasons. Recognising that the association with British nationalism is an obstacle to success in Wales and Scotland, Davin Hannam argues that the BNP should make virtue out of necessity and reconstitute themselves as English nationalists.
Writing on the Cross of St George Forum, BNP member “Cleveland” summarises the argument
“Hannam argues that the BNP will need to go further than its recent support for an English parliament if it is to harvest a potential English nationalist vote. There are some obligatory derogatory remarks about the English Democrats and the ‘English (sic) First Party’ whilst acknowledging that those parties have identified a piece of action which the BNP needs to be getting a slice of. And as ‘British’ has become a multiculturally embracing term “the term ‘English’”, Hannam notes, “is a refuge for the racially aware voter”.
“Hannam observes that “The harsh truth is that the Scottish people are not going to vote BNP in any significant numbers”, with the consequent implication that the BNP should scale down its electoral efforts north of the border. In England, Hannam advocates “more use of the St George Cross” and “incorporat[ing] our pro-English parliament stance at grassroots level”.
“The BNP simply have far more popular policies than the English Democrats all they are lacking is the word English in their title. I can see the majority of Scottish, Welsh and N Irish members objecting to a name change but the English members will massively support such a move without doubt.”
The pictured BNP leaflet from the Cumbrian Patriot Blogshows their increasing interest in hijacking the English parliament issue. This is a real problem, as the BNP have a very inflammatory and exclusive understanding of Englishness.
As Lee Barnes, BNP “theorist” writes:
“The BNP articulate the interests of the indigenous English Folk Community through recognising them as a distinct Folk community and then working to take power from the corrupt British state and give it back to them so that they can take charge of their own lives once more. The fact is that the indigenous White Working Class of Britain has been betrayed by all the political parties in Britain. Only we in the BNP will give back to the English Folk Community the voice that has been stolen from them by the British State and its political structures.”
As the demand for an English parliament grows, in symmetry with the existing constitutional settlement for Scotland and Wales, the nature of Englishness will become a more important political issue. This will become even more important of Scotland reaches further towards independence. There is a very real danger that the resulting debate will be hijacked by the far right. the quotes above demonstrate that the BNP are becomming aware of this opportunity for them. As the majority of English people both identify with our nation, while at the same time being comfortable with its vibrant and tolerant multi-racial and multi-cultural nature, we must fight to ensure that the far right do not succed in racialising the debate.
To combat the influence of the BNP, there needs to be a response from the left to the specific issues that only affect England. As the likes of Garry Bushell and Kelvin MacKensie traduce the Scots and Welsh for higher government spending and better social services, we need to endorse and support the more progressive direction from Cardiff and Edinburgh, whilst arguing that these policies need to be extended to England.
This combines both arguing for a similar improvement in working and social conditions for people in England, while undercutting the arguments of the reactionaries who so resent the advances made in Scotland and Wales. But that also means that the left should involve itself much more in the progressive single issue campaigns for an English parliament, and a national anthem for England. This is an important ideological and political battleground, and it is not one we should allow the right wing to occupy without a contest.
I think there is a lot of relevant comment in the above article. However it will be the European Elections where the BNP are likely to seek to promote “Englishness” and exploit this issue to the full. Many voters in London elections identify themselves as Londoners, and they already have their own Assembly, so the issue is more difficult to exploit in 2008. I think it is vital that anti-racist campaigners are out campaigning in the Assembly elections, but there has to be careful political consideration of what is the most effective way to do this.
Comment by Peter Cranie — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
That is an interesting point about Londoners’ identity, and Phil Edwards wrote an excellent article about it:
http://gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/god-save-history/
I have heard Tony Benn say that he identifies first as a Londoner, and then as Britsih, and not as English at all. (Though strangely he never made that point about identifying frst as a Londooner when he stood for Bristol East or Chesterfield!)
Comment by Andy — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
By the way Peter, as part of the careful political considrations for the London elections, will the Green party be making a recommendation for a second preference vote for Ken Livingston?
Comment by Andy — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
The Cross of St George Forum is not an English Democrat Forum, but many are English Democrat members. The bnp have turned up on the forum for years, but they don’t seem to get the message that we don’t do british and we don’t do union jacks. The ukip are the same brit nat types who seem to think that once they are elected in England they have to speak for the whole of the uk.
The forum membership is the working class shitted off
with the England haters of the left and the right.
Comment by tally — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Thanks for the clarification Tally, I will modify the post to take out the reference to Cross of St George being an English Democrat forum.
Comment by Andy — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Where do us Cornish fit into this?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 5 December, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
On the old CEP Blog (that can be read courtesy of webarchive) Lee Barnes suggested that people should have genetic testing to see whether they would be allowed to vote in an English Parliament.
When asked It is impossible to discover whether you are truly of Anglo Saxon descent.
He replied: Ever heard of DNA testing?
And when you put that together with some of the other things he says it gives you some idea of what type of English parliament they envisage.
“only the ethnic english would be allowed to register and vote”
“Everyone will have the right to vote in the British elections regardless of ethnicity - only indigenous Scots, English and Welsh will have the right to vote in their respective parliaments.”
“The BNP manifesto states that we will set up an English Parliament for the indigenous Anglo-Saxon people. But this will be an English Parliament of the English People as opposed to an imaginary pseudo-English parliament composed of asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, Zulus, Kurds, Innuit, Iraqis, Tutsis, Somalis etc etc.”
Comment by Toque — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
“The ukip are the same brit nat types who seem to think that once they are elected in England they have to speak for the whole of the uk”
I’m not a Brit Nat but I am UKIP.
“Where do us Cornish fit into this?”
Bottom left corner of England. What’s the point in independent nationhood if your economy could only support subsistence farming? Cornwall has nothing that sets it aside as a nation - it hasn’t had a national identity for centuries and even the Cornish language is a modern-day estimate of what the language might once have been. I’m all for promoting Cornish culture if anyone is interested in it but Cornwall is part of England. Maybe Mebyn Kernow would get more support if they supported devolution for England as a nation and then pressed for regional devolution from the English PArliament?
Comment by wonkotsane — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry, that webarchive link is here
Comment by Toque — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Good find Toque. If I remember rightly, it was you and me arguing with him over this. He ended up calling me a liberal facist which is not only moronic but oxymoronic (like what I did there?)
Comment by wonkotsane — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t know about that Wonkotsane #8.
It is up to the Cornish whether they consider a closer affinity with England or Wales. the ecoomy of Cornwall and the social problems are much more similar to Pembrokeshire for example than they are to Dorset.
And mebyon Kernow are making gains. In May’s election there was an interesting development that Mebyon Kernow won a council seat in a firmly working class traditional labour seat. And it is interesting how left wing Mebyon Kernow are, for example advocating withdrawl from NATO. And in the 2004 Euro elections they came to a formal electroal arrangment with the Greens.
Comment by Andy — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
I’m Cornish and now live in Yorkshire. My best friend is Cornish. My daughters boyfriend is Cornish. My husbands maternal family and their ancestors are Cornish.
We all also English and we don’t need tits like the Cornish nationalists telling people we are not. They have no right to steal our English identity from us and I’d lay odds that we have more county cornish blood in our family than they have in theirs.
We say Cornwall is a a county in Enland and we are English. We must have an English Parliament representing everyone in England, which includes me and my family and friends from the county of Cornwall.
Comment by Cornish lass — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
The concept of multiple identities comes into play here. There’s a rabid minority of Cornish nationalists who insist that you cannot be English and Cornish and run around the place setting fire to English flags and such like. It’s not a million miles away from the anti-English Scottish and Welsh nationalism of the 1980s and early 90s, or indeed the British/English nationalism of the BNP.
I see no reason why you can’t be Cornish and English, or Cornish, English and British.
Unfortunately ‘nationalism’ is such a catchall phrase that people use to lump together ethnic and civic nationalists, usually when trying to discredit perfectly legitimate civic nationalism.
Comment by Toque — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
The thing is though that the question of Cornwall can only be settled by the Cornish.
For me one of the most importnat aspects of establishing an English parliament (and England as an independant country), is that it removes the red herring of the EU and labour party trying to create Engish regions as an alternative to nationhood.
once that is out the way we can have a more rational debate about regional policy and regional inequality within England.
Comment by Andy — 5 December, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
In my experience, as a Penzance lad now living in Manchester, Cornish people do not generally identify as being English. They identify as being Cornish and British. Check out the number of Cornish Flags on the back of the cars of Cornish ex-pats as an indication of the level of identification with Cornwall.
Actually, I think a Cornish national state is a bit of a joke, unless the price of pasties sores somewhat.
Its not just Cornwall though, across the country people don’t really have a clear idea of a national identity.
A left-wing starting pint is to acknowledge that national identities are built rather then pre-existing. Given that no coherent English identity exists the question is what would be to be gained (for progressives) by attempting to build it?
I’m all for supporting regional culture but trying to create a feeling of Englishness, to build a national consciousnesses that doesn’t really exist now - would benefit no one but reactionaries.
Maybe my view of who people see themselves has been squeed by living in emmit (i.e. tourist/anyone Devon up) hating Cornwall and now multi-cultural Manchester. Anyone now of any good survays on this issue?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 5 December, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
English regions are a more progressive alternative to nationhood
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 5 December, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
“English regions are a more progressive alternative to nationhood”
Well, we had the South East regional assembly and the Cornish weren’t too happy about that.
“I’m all for supporting regional culture but trying to create a feeling of Englishness, to build a national consciousnesses that doesn’t really exist now - would benefit no one but reactionaries.”
English identity is stronger than regional identity, so why support regional culture if no regional consiousness exists? Anyway, the premise of your argument - that there is no English national consiousness - is incorrect. It’s true that the English also consider themselves British but that doesn’t make them less English, it just means that Britishness is a component of Englishness (albeit a diminishing component thanks to Scottish and Welsh devolution). Recent surveys show that Englishness is on the rise, and Britishness on the decline.
Comment by Toque — 5 December, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
QUOTE
“I have heard Tony Benn say that he identifies first as a Londoner, and then as Britsih, and not as English at all. (Though strangely he never made that point about identifying frst as a Londooner when he stood for Bristol East or Chesterfield!)”
Why is it that only England is singled out for this divisive propagander?
The Scottish are allowed to be Scottish, the Welsh-Welsh, but every effort is put into driving wedges into the English community. It is not accidental.
Comment by Fred Forsythe (Not the) — 5 December, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I contribute to the Cross of St George forum and I am also a member of The Campaign for an English Parliament. I have to say, however, that I would rather Gordon Brown be Prime Minister than the BNP be in power!
Both the left and right in Parliament need to do rectify the democratic deficit which is the lack of an English Parliament/English Executive and English First Minister before the BNP and their followers succeed in infiltrating English nationalism for their nasty racist little purposes!
Comment by Home Rule for England — 5 December, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Its always interesting to watch how the left in England respond to the imminent break-up of Britain. Or not respond, as the case may be.
The English left could take a leaf out of the book of the Scottish left and start from first principles, namely:
1. The break-up of the war-mongering imperialist British state is progressive, necessary and should not only be welcomed but actively campaigned for.
2. The break-up of a large centralised state into smaller democratic states is about the decentralisation of power, and bringing democracy closer to the people.
3. A new state is a new democratic space. And it certainly doesnt have to be a carbon copy of the state it emerged from. Use your imaginations!
If the English left were to keep these basic concepts of democracy at the forefront of their approach to the British/English identity dilemma, and act accordingly, they won’t go far wrong.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 5 December, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Both ‘English’ and ‘Welsh’ were conspicuous by their absence from the 2001 Census; there was a lot more sensitivity to Scottish identities. In the categories which appeared in England and Wales as ‘Black or Black British’ and ‘Asian or Asian British’, ‘British’ was replaced by ‘Scottish’ in Scotland. In England and Wales the ‘White’ ethnic category broke down into ‘White British’, ‘White Irish’ and ‘White - other’ (write in); in Scotland ‘White Scottish’ appeared before (not instead of) ‘White British’.
I think it’s a bit like the old saying that a language is a dialect with an army and navy - the state is Britain rather than England, so (outside Scotland) we’re still British by default.
Comment by Phil — 5 December, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
“I’d lay odds that we have more county cornish blood in our family than they have in theirs.”
And what has blood got to do with anything? This isn’t Nazi Germany, you know.
Comment by Llygoden Fach — 5 December, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
#17 “Recent surveys show that Englishness is on the rise, and Britishness on the decline”
It’d be interesting to read some of these surveys if anyone has any links.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 5 December, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
I have also contributed to the CoSG forum and over the years the forum and I can tell you that it has amongst it’s members a broad church from all parties. But I stray from the point, if the BNP were to change and indeed as you put it nick the idea of campaigning for an EP and if by chance they were to succeed be it in a small way, the result can go two ways, either the main political parties take up the idea themselves ( god knows we have been banging on at them for years ) or we will see more of the same old cliches about England being full of far right thugs, I can only hope it is the former
Comment by Barry (The Elder) — 5 December, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
#3 Andy - I can’t imagine that we would recommend a 2nd preference for anyone else! It will be up to London GP to decide but if Livingstone wants a declaration that Green 2nd preferences should be used for him, I’m sure he would need to show willing to look at particular Green issues of concern in his forthcoming term. However it is a different situation to 2000 when he was an Independent. I’m sure any official position will be issued much closer to the election than now.
Sian Berry’s latest post http://www.newstatesman.com/200712030001
Comment by Peter Cranie — 6 December, 2007 @ 8:56 am
I don’t suppose in all this talk about English Parliaments, identity and democracy there’s any chance of a Marxist analysis breaking out. You know, something about how there’s no chance of anything progressive about English nationalism because it can’t conceivably be deemed to be an oppressed nation - the opposite in fact.
Comment by Doug — 6 December, 2007 @ 10:51 am
If any are interested my link should take you to our letters to the editor section since 2005. we have many more going right back to devolution.
Comment by tally — 6 December, 2007 @ 10:53 am
An interesting article. I have never understood how this Government sees fit to re-bestow nationhood on Scotland and Wales and then dissolve England into regions. It seems that England is the last area still occupied by British colonists. But then the Scots were proportionately more active in the days of the LAST Empire!
Equality for all in the UK. We must ensure that the issues are dealt with fairly, that England gets its own domestic parliament and that the Welsh Assembly is also upgraded to a parliament.
Or the UK breaks up.
Whatever happens, England must regain its nationhood without the loathsome influence of the BNP. The Government, in not addressing the public’s concerns about assymetric devolution, is playing a mighty undemocratic and mighty dangerous game.
And in suppressing the notion of English nationhood, to give it parity with Scotland and Wales, is behaving in rather a fascist manner itself!
Comment by Chris Abbott — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Doug #26
Is it your view that marxists have written noting about the national question that doesn’t involve oppressed nations?
Or that marxists are not concerend with questions of national identity and democracy?
Perhaps if you move on from pamphets written 100 years ago to address an entirely diferrent problem you mihgt realise there is a real political issue here.
Comment by Andy — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:24 am
I live in the real world. A supposedly “United Kingdom” where people in England scrimp and save for medications available on the NHS in Scotland, or pay for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales. A country where non-representaive MPs foist legislation onto the vast majority and ride comfortable gravy trains.
Your rantings don’t interest me. I’ve been studying the problems caused by assymetric devolution in the UK for the last five years and firmly believe that a federal system is the only way forward.
True socialism is about equality, not some ridiculous little online clique of ranters like your good self, Andy.
Comment by Chris Abbott — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Andy: Whoops, seems you weren’t replying to me! Must admit I was puzzled by the content of your mail, because I hadn’t read the whole thread. I’m sorry for jumping in with my size ten boots.
Comment by Chris Abbott — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:50 am
That is OK Chris
I was a little perplexed, as I largely agree with you.
No hard feelings.
Comment by Andy — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Andy: Many thanks - I do jump in at times - I’ve got a very intelligent and deep thinking brain - only trouble is it’s not wired up!
Comment by Chris Abbott — 6 December, 2007 @ 11:55 am
#23
Here is one survey. I tried to post it before, maybe I put too many links in and was detected as spam? It has happened to commentators on my blog (where I also discuss issues raised here).
More anecdotally I feel an English, not regional identity, and there is the often mentioned football flags, in 1966 it was all Union flags, now it’s all Crosses of St George. It seems not everyone shares your view of identity, Cornwall may be a special case.
Comment by The Secret Person — 6 December, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Thankd for that “secret person”, and more than two links and the spam filter kicks in.
Sometimes I catch comments from the spam box, but if I am not vigilant enough they can be lost.
Indeed as recently as 1990 in Italy it was mainly Union flags.
Comment by Andy — 6 December, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Andy, thanks for a well written article, it is a subject the left should embrace, but it needs to divorce what is best for Brown and what is best for the people.
Gordon Brown has sworn a solemn oath that Scotland’s interests shall be paramount and so far he has been true to his word (the Barnett Formula, slashing the English NHS budget, attempting the balkanization of England by stealth etc etc.)
When Labour MP Graham Stringer opened a Commons debate on why his Manchester constituents receive less public spending than wealthier Scotland, no. 10 attempted to gag him http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1025597_no_10_tried_to_gag_mp_
Given a choice between giving people what they want (nearly 70% want an EP) and what Brown wants, this Government supports the latter. As you say :… it is common for Labour politicians to deny even the existence of England as a nation, referring instead to the UK as being a union of nations and regions.”
This is straight from Brown’s Thesaurus, and to quote from it “England: this country: our country: the regions: cash cow: voting fodder.”
Comment by Terry — 6 December, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Andy
I’ve already argued numerous times against your fantasy of coopting English nationalism/English national identity for the Left, to which you have failed or been unwilling to justify in concrete terms i.e explaining precisely what English national identity consists of, probably because if you had to be more specific not woollly the nonsense would be laid bare. So you harp on about Englisb Parliaments and when criticised from the Left come aout with stuff like Tom Nairn’s snide remarks about cosmopolitanism (clearly inferior to tailing Scottish nationalism). Personally, I’d got the impression that the power of the ruling class didn’t reside solely in any Parliament and why you consider it inherently superior to have an English bourgeois Parliament as preferable to a British one I’m at a loss to understand. I would have thought there were more important things for Leftists to consider than constitutional blind alleys.
Comment by Doug — 6 December, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Doug
If you are denying that there is any such thing as natioonal consciousness, or feelings of national identity, then how can your describe the cultural and political differences between say Germany and Italy?
If you accept that France and Ireland are nations, then isn’t England?
These are not woolly concepts, in fact as you know I have discussed national consciousness in the terms outlined by the Marxits, Voloshinov and Bauer.
But on a more political level, see Kevin Williamson’s comment above at #20.
“One of the more importnat things for lefitosts ot consider” in your words, might be why there are no prescrition charges in Wales, and no tuition charges in Scotland, but we have both in England?
That is a class issue, with it basis in the undemocratic natute of the current constitional settlement.
Do you think it is democratic that MPs for Welsh and Scottish constituencies vote that people who live in England should have worse health and eductaion provision than their own constituents?
Far from being a fantasty, this is a real issue which hits working class people in England in their pockets.
Comment by Andy — 6 December, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
>>> Recognising that the association with British nationalism is an obstacle to success in Wales and Scotland
In Wales Plaid Cymru are not only a nationalist organisation but they are also perceived by a great many people in Wales to be progressive or even socialist. A number of their elected representatives openly define themselves as socialists (Adam Price, Leanne Wood, Bethan Jenkins etc). In Wales there is relatively little support for a broader ‘British Nationalism’ and the Welsh nationalist movement is represented by a left-leaning (though essentially petty bourgeois) organisation.
Despite this, the BNP received shockingly high votes in the Welsh Assembly elections, numbering several thousand in each region and coming close to winning election in the North. It cannot be because there is a lack of a (perceived) progressive nationalist movement, a need to reclaim nationalism for the left as Billy Bragg and yourself argue in relation to England.
Whilst I have no truck with you and Bragg (or Orwell for that matter) having a notion of progressive patriotism, I think the idea that this be taken on board by the left is a smokescreen. I’m sure that there are a few people in the English nationalist campaigns who we could relate to but it should be through genuinely progressive causes (NHS campaigns, Stop the War etc). There may be a democratic question to be answered regarding the West Lothian question but I don’t think that the left should orientate on people who make that one of their key campaigning tasks as the social base of such a movement is certainly not working class - remember, some of the biggest supporters for such a body (or rather, a “grand committee” of English MPs) are Tories who think they’d be able to have a majority in it - which they would.
Comment by Syme — 6 December, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Syrne - the Tories are for the Union. The Grand Committee is not a parliament - it is a way for them to make out they’re interested in ending a democratic deficit.
Why isn’t is progressive for England to have democratic representation? Or for the Barnett formula to be replaced with funding allocated on the basis of need? What makes you think that the Tories would dominate an English parliament?
Comment by Charlie Marks — 6 December, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Syme
I don’t know why the BNP attracted votes in Wales, there are plenty of reasons. But they would not have attracted votes on the basis of any lack of Welsh democracy, as they might try to in England. It is more likely that those on the right would be tempted to the BNP, particularly if they put a smokescreen over their more blatantly racist policies.
By all means the socialists don’t have to beleive in ‘progressive patriotism’ but then any patriotic feelings, which do geniunely exist, would be targetted into right wing politics (no bad thing some might say!). And if any right wing politics which espouse patriotism are condemned as racist, then the only outlet for patriotism becomes those who don’t mind being calle racist, i.e. the likes of the BNP.
I think Andy’s point is (and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong) that there is a genuine feeling of national identity (not homogenous or easily defined, but people feel themselves to belong) and it has the possibility to be abused if ignored.
Comment by The Secret Person — 7 December, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Secret Person: “I think Andy’s point is (and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong) that there is a genuine feeling of national identity (not homogenous or easily defined, but people feel themselves to belong) and it has the possibility to be abused if ignored.”
exactly
;o)
Comment by Andy — 7 December, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Are the BNP trying to hijack English identity? All they’ve said is that it is under threat. They are telling the truth. That’s why you philosopher kings think you have to ‘redefine’ it for us simple English folk. Very kind of you but I think we all know who the hijackers are. Merry Christmas.
Comment by Tony Rogers — 13 December, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Is 43 submitted by David Anthony Rogers, who secured 141 votes, or 6%, in the Silksworth Ward for the British National Party in 2002?
Comment by Roger Anthony — 13 December, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
i fink the bmp is right because why does the people from different contrys come into england wen they go past France and others and i feel like a 2nd citizen in my own country so send them bak. ENGLISH AND PROUD
Comment by liam snaith — 16 December, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
fuck u BNP
Comment by James Bond — 13 January, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
… and not a single mention of the Cornish people. The CORNISH, like the Welsh, have been on this island for at least a couple thousand years.
Comment by Jon — 12 September, 2009 @ 8:29 pm