I think I was also simplifying my own position when I said I regard British civic values / society as really just English. The values in themselves (e.g. tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of speech / conscience / assembly, habeas corpus . . .) are universal liberal-humanist tenets; but when people talk of the ‘Britishness’ of these values as reflected and enacted in our society, they’re usually talking of Englishness and English society (and the English character, communities, social classes, etc.).

I like your points about building an inclusive Englishness being vital for building an inclusive Britishness; and the point about political gentrification of Englishness. That’s a good way of looking at it – also because of its class connotations.

If Arthur is saying we have to demolish Britishness, then you are essentially advocating a rebranding exercise. Britishness >>> Englishness.

I don’t really agree with either to be honest. My problem with Perryman’s book is that it is a study of England after Britain, essentially telling us that the time to take Englishness seriously is now, because Britain might split up and leave us all disenfranchised loners. But there is an argument that says we should build a strong inclusive sense of Englishness for the sake of Britain and Britishness.

You are giving ISMs a bad name, it’s a spurious argument to argue that they are all discriminatory: secularism, radicalism, conservatism, socialism, liberalism, libertarianism. You might happen to think that some of these are bad….but discriminatory? Nationalism, if you discard the racial claptrap that certain folk ascribe to it, is no more menacing than regionalism. It’s a way of ordering society – in our case the boundaries of our democracy.

Where it breaks down, perhaps, is when the very people who object to English nationalism or an English parliament ask you why you need an English parliament. The only answer is, let’s be honest, that ethnic nationalism underpins civic nationalism – England is a nation formed through common experience, culture, religion, history, politics and ethnicity.

It’s complete claptrap to say that English can’t be as inclusive an identity as British. England is more diverse than Britain, just as London is more diverse than England. The difference is that there has been no political gentrification of Englishness. If there was then you probably see the far-right drifting out into other terms like Aryan, of WASP, or Britons (as opposed to British). Language changes.

Check out the Red Pepper debate on this http://tinyurl.com/5j33jb