Britology Watch: Deconstructing \’British Values\’

13 March 2008

Is England the New Red?

Recently, there’ve been mutterings of revolution in the English-nationalist blogosphere. Doubtless, such fighting talk has got the minions at the Home Office who track potentially ‘subversive’ publications feeling twitchy. They do actually do this, or at least they used to back in the 70s and 80s when the threat they feared was that of presumed-to-be Soviet-backed revolutionary organisations and their antithesis: racist British nationalists. So we’d better be careful what we write: Big Brother’s most junior civil servants could be watching us. And if you’re reading this, chaps, hello and I hope you enjoy it. Gosh, I wouldn’t actually mind reading English-nationalist blogs for a living! (Well, I suppose you can get too much of a good thing.)

Joking aside, is English nationalism on the government’s radar as a serious threat to ‘this country’s’ stability, on a par with, or analogous to, terrorism? You could say that English nationalists are viewed by the liberal establishment as something of a combination of the two threats they used to be worried about 30 years ago: left-wing and right-wing extremism. Left-wing because of our defence of the English people, betrayed and ignored by a conservative New Labour that pursues its own mainly middle-class-orientated ideological agenda without a mandate, and ignoring the needs of the working class it used to speak for; right-wing because of the automatic assimilation liberals make between nationalism and racism, and hence between the often in reality rather liberal English nationalist and the in fact extremist BNP.

So when the government contemplates the world of English nationalism as it presents its case on the world-wide web, does it see red? That’s if it’s bothered to keep any sort of watch over what English nationalists and the English people as such are saying to them; because the extent to which the very existence of England as a nation is ignored in official government publications and policy could lead one to the conclusion that England isn’t on their radar in any shape or form.

The association of England with the colour red, and the radical political positions traditionally linked with that colour, is perhaps not just a trivial one. It was suggested in a local Campaign for an English Parliament blog recently that the English flag is genuinely and widely regarded as a health and safety risk, presumably because of its use of red. Anthropological studies have indeed concluded that red is associated with danger, violence and death – obviously because of the association with blood. For this reason, one academic report I heard about yesterday suggested that wearing red kit gives football teams a psychological advantage, because it’s a form of intimidatory display of male aggression. The report cited the fact that the three most successful English football clubs throughout the history of the game – Liverpool, Manchester Utd and Arsenal – all wear red as their home kit; and the study apparently backs up this observation with statistical analysis.

Much as it pains me profoundly as a Spurs supporter, I had often wondered myself whether wearing red gives teams something of a psychological boost for this very reason. And though I have an unfounded pride in the fact that the England national team wears Spurs’ colours for their home kit, maybe we should contemplate switching to our current second kit as the home kit: red shirt and white shorts. After all, we did win our only World Cup victory wearing the red shirts. Similarly, when the English Army was still known as the English, not British, Army, the uniform was also bright red; and it must have been quite an intimidating experience coming up against young English lads – who, let’s face it, have always enjoyed a bit of a ruck against Johnny Foreigner – bedecked in red in the field of battle. In fact, I seriously doubt whether the migrant-besieged citizens of Peterborough would have displayed the same level of aggression towards English military personnel – if they were English – than they are reported to have recently shown towards uniformed members of the British RAF.

Whatever you think of this sort of colour theory, it is an observable fact that the colour red is out of fashion: in design, corporate branding, the fashion industry proper, graphic art and politics. Red is used much more sparingly than it used to be. Think back to the 1980s when our streets were filled with bright-red cars; children’s toys were very often bright red; and people actually wore red clothing from day to day, rather than just on special occasions such as Christmas parties or, let’s be honest, when women want to draw the male eye. At that time, of course, the Labour Party was proud to sing the Red Flag (and its members used to actually know the words) and to sport red as its tribal colour, when it still laid claims to being socialist. The ‘rot’ perhaps came in when they opted for the red rose as their symbol, backed by inoffensive greys and beige.

Seriously, though, when did this decline of red from being a ‘popular’ colour – indeed, the colour of the people – to being a despised colour begin? It seems to me that it’s about the same time as the communist-socialist political ideal died a death in the early 90s, with the collapse of the former Communist Block and the end of socialism as a realistic, electable proposition not just in Britain but in most Western European countries. The end of the socialist dream also saw a realignment in people’s values, which became focused more on individual ‘aspiration’ rather than placing one’s hope for a better life in a collective political undertaking and a ‘better society’. Aspiration is about desire: not just sexual desire but about imagining a better future in which you can not only have everything you basically need but realise all your ambitions and possess all you want. Socialism, on the other hand, is about making sure everyone’s basic needs are met: to each according to his needs.

And the colour red is also about basic need: in addition to being associated with violence and death, and for the very same reasons, it is associated with everything that is most vital and indispensable for life itself – our life’s blood, and all that sustains life and resists the threat of suffering and death. Hence, the symbol of the great humanitarian organisation: the Red Cross on a white background. Which, of course, also happens to be the symbol of England. Because red is associated with basic needs, rather than with the aspirational aspects of our culture and our politics, it is also generally thought of now as a ‘cheap’ and ‘crude’ colour. Think just how widespread the use of red is to advertise or serve as the brand for goods and retail stores that are thought of as cheap or ‘on sale’.

So when those Home Office tea wallahs or serious liberal politicos visit English-nationalist websites to be regaled by the prominent use of red everywhere, including proud displays of the Cross of St George, are they put off by the dual associations of red with extreme left-wing, even revolutionary, politics, and with a crudeness of design reflecting a supposed crudeness of thought and expression? Are any would-be liberal middle-class converts to the English-nationalist cause put off by its apparent appeal – symbolised by the use of red – to populism and the supposedly ill-educated, rude and aggressive English working class? I think there can be little doubt that such class and cultural factors are at work in liberal squeamishness towards English nationalism, and the reluctance of liberals to even consider that fair, representative democracy for England is actually a natural liberal cause.

But really, we’ve got to look beyond image and consider the substance of the matter: that substance being the real needs and wishes of the English people that the British political establishment has ignored for so long. This is not necessarily a socialist argument, but it certainly is a demand for social justice; and an insistence that neglected English working and non-working people, with all the huge social and personal problems they face, need to be at the forefront of political thinking and policy, and not the despised margin. And for this reason, we should be proud to display the red of England: a reminder that England needs to be heard.

Advertisements

17 Comments »

  1. “But really, we’ve got to look beyond image and consider the substance of the matter: that substance being the real needs and wishes of the English people that the British political establishment has ignored for so long.”

    As an outsider this just seems really, well, funny. With the concentration of wealth in the South-East. with the key agencies of ther British State located in London (the BBC, Parliament, Monarchy, MI5 et, with the Olympics about to drain the coffers of community sports throughtout the rest of the UK and so on and on on, your argument just seems crazy.

    You argue against the ‘automatic assimilation liberals make between nationalism and racism, and hence between the often in reality rather liberal English nationalist and the in fact extremist BNP’ but in the same piece write: ‘In fact, I seriously doubt whether the migrant-besieged citizens of Peterborough would have displayed the same level of aggression towards English military personnel – if they were English – than they are reported to have recently shown towards uniformed members of the British RAF.’

    Thank god for the good people of Peterborough i say who have the guts to oppose the jingoism of troops in uniform back from an illegal war.

    I dont oppose a parliament for England if you have independence, but I really dont understand your sense of grievance when you have been running the British State from London for the past 300 years and benefitting very nicely.

    Please explain.

    Comment by Gus Abraham — 13 March 2008 @ 2.09 pm | Reply

  2. Thanks for your comment, Gus. Your response, it seems to me, is predicated on the assumption that the British state is effectively the English state: run by English people for the benefit primarily of the English. This may have been the case in the past; but it certainly isn’t any more. Recommended reading (in this blog and elsewhere): Barnett Formula (the financial mechanism whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people get considerably more spent on them from the public purse per head of population than the English, irrespective of actual need); devolution (currently, an asymmetric arrangement whereby people not elected in England make laws and policies for England (e.g. Gordon Brown) while English voters no longer have any say on the same sorts of policies in Scotland and Wales. See also all the stuff here and elsewhere on Britishness (my categories ‘Campaign for Plain England’ and ‘say England’ could also be useful here). The government appears set on forging a new unitary British national identity and state that denies the very existence of England. And they don’t have to consult the English people because a) they’re often not elected there and b) the electoral system gives them a massive majority out of all proportion to the minority of British people – let alone English people – who vote for them.

    And on the subject of the people in Peterborough who abused British airmen, I don’t know what their motives were, nor do you, I presume. I don’t think it was necessarily, or exclusively, a protest against the unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – which I actually think are unjust, too (see category Afghanistan). I think it may reflect their anger with the British state that has allowed immigration on a massive scale (most of it to England) – and Peterborough has been particularly affected – meaning that many low-skilled English people are priced out of a job. This is a fact, well documented and statistically based (see my posts on Immigration as a starter). The low-skilled working class and the unemployed have been grievously neglected by this government – not just the English working class but the British as a whole. But at least, in Scotland and Wales, they have administrations that actually care about their countrymen; whereas, how can the British government claim to care about English people when its policies have done so little for them, and when they can’t even acknowledge the existence of England and that it may have particular socio-economic needs that have to be addressed – for a start, by a fairer allocation of public expenditure.

    Comment by David — 13 March 2008 @ 3.07 pm | Reply

  3. I know what the Barnett Formula is.

    Here are three questions:

    What do you think the reason is for higher public spening in Scotland?

    How much revenue has there been and is expected from North Sea Oil?

    How many English MPs are there and how many MPS from Scottish constituencies?

    Im not sure why hostility to soldiers in uniform in Peterborough ‘…may reflect their anger with the British state that has allowed immigration on a massive scale (most of it to England) – and Peterborough has been particularly affected – meaning that many low-skilled English people are priced out of a job.’

    Im genuinely confused by your line of reasoning.

    Comment by Gus Abraham — 13 March 2008 @ 3.28 pm | Reply

  4. Gus,

    1) The higher public spending in Scotland is not only a reflection of the relative poverty of its inhabitants. Actually, I don’t know the full economics. But there are areas of considerable deprivation in England, too. England isn’t just the wealthy South-East, as you seemed to suggest in your first comment. The point is, in Scotland, they get many more benefits for their higher public-spending budget than we do in England, such as free social care and university tuition, and better funding for drug therapies in the NHS – including for chronic conditions such as cancer, etc., etc. There are many more people in England as a whole who need these things than in Scotland; but we don’t get them, nor do we get the democratic choice about whether to fund them by, for instance, ceasing to fund the unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, Tony Blair said that the Barnett Formula was the price England had to pay for preserving the Union – that’s probably the main reason for it.

    2) The North Sea Oil issue is a tired old Scottish-nationalist chestnut: ‘Scotland deserves higher public expenditure than England because it’s our oil that’s filling their coffers’. Well, either a Union exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then the oil belongs to all of us, and public expenditure should be distributed in proportion to need – which it isn’t being; or the Union doesn’t exist, in which case there would doubtless be protracted arguments about who it belongs to (the Scottish claim to own all of it is contested) plus they’d have to finance all their public expenditure from their own resources – net result, probably not much difference for Scotland; a lesser burden, but reduced income, for England. Big deal. Besides, Scottish ownership of the oil doesn’t explain or justify why Northern Ireland and Wales are also beneficiaries of the Barnett Formula.

    3) Yes, of course, there are massively more English MPs than Scottish, although – I believe – still proportionately more Scottish MPs per head of population than English (although I may be wrong on that one). But what does this prove? Scottish MPs still have no moral (and arguably, no legal) right to vote on England-only matters in Westminster (e.g. education, health, planning, transport, many cultural affairs, etc. etc.). Why? Firstly, because this violates the principle of democratic accountability: they can’t be voted out by the people affected by their decisions. Secondly, because the Scottish people themselves have no right to vote on policies and laws for England (as they have separate elections and parliaments to make policies for them in these areas), which they do by electing those MPs in the first place: this violates the principle of the geographical integrity of an electoral territory – votes from outside the territory determining the make up of the representative body that governs it. (To their credit, most Scottish and Welsh people also feel they shouldn’t vote on these matters in UK elections, where only England is affected by the outcome.) The inclusion of Welsh and Scottish MPs – a higher proportion of whom are Labour than in England – artificially inflates the government’s disproportionate majority. And this matters because MPs vote on party lines, not independently based on the best interests of their constituents and, by extension, their constituents’ country. So England is not adequately, accountably or proportionately represented in Westminster.

    The people in Peterborough may feel pissed off at the British government (whose representatives they may perceive the RAF personnel to be) because they blame the government for allowing mass immigration. Immigrants often get paid much lower wages for manual and menial jobs than English people are prepared to accept; but also, they’re competing for the better paid jobs. So all I’m saying is, perhaps there was an element of taking out resentment at the lack of job opportunities by directing this at other young people (the RAF personnel) who are perceived to be doing all right thank you very much while representing a government towards which people feel resentment and anger. Is that so hard to understand? However, as I say, I don’t know for sure that was the reason for the abuse. But there’s a lot of alienation from figures and symbols of authority; and part of the reason in my view is that the political system is so unrepresentative of and uninterested in English working class people and concerns.

    Comment by David — 13 March 2008 @ 4.46 pm | Reply

    • I’m sick of listening to you English dimwits lecturing Scots about democracy. Let me spell it out for you in the vain hope it might penetrate your thick mongrel skulls. You have a parliament (that gothic monstrocity with the big silly clock attached)which is dominated by English tossers like you and in which you said tossers impose your will on the Sottish people with the powers that are reserved to you, which of course are the important ones, such as the economy,foreign policy, immigration control,defence,welfare,etc. Such powers enable you lot to dictate to Scots on matters such as: whether or not they go to war on your miserable behalf — and recently the quintessential English tosser Blair did exactly that by engaging us in this endless illegal war in that subhuman shithole Afghanistan;who comes into our country and who doesn’t;what we should show on our TVs and what we can’t;house your English nuclear weapons in our country, so if there’s a little accident we are the ones who are blown to kingdom come; and so on.
      And to give further evidence of your dominance of my country I only have to remind you of what happened at the last election — the Scots voted for a Labour government and you English inflicted a Tory one on us; in effect you simpletons gave jobs to some English Etonian arseholes so that they in turn could take your jobs off you.How does that appeal to your offended sense of democracy?
      But as usual when the unfair advantage lies with you English you keep your big mouths shut.

      Comment by mrarratoon — 20 August 2010 @ 3.59 am | Reply

      • mrarratoon, In the interests of free speech and to prove you wrong (i.e. I’m not keeping my mouth shut), I’ve approved this comment of yours. This is despite the fact that the language you use makes it far more offensive to the English than anything I may have written is offensive to the Scots, whose cause of national self-determination I’m actually sympathetic towards, partly, at least, because if Scotland were independent, then the Westminster parliament or its replacement could be a genuine English parliament.

        You say, “to give further evidence of your dominance of my country I only have to remind you of what happened at the last election — the Scots voted for a Labour government and you English inflicted a Tory one on us”. Well, that reverses the situation at the 2005 election, then, when despite the fact that more people voted Tory than Labour in England, we got a Labour government that relied on the disproportional number of its Scottish MPs to pass legislation that affected only England or else was an assault on our civil liberties (42 days detention without trial for suspected terrorists, which the House of Lords – which you’d doubtless accuse of being stuffed with English toffs – had to overrule).

        You should learn a bit about devolution: the Westminster government is the British government, not an English government; and under Labour, it was stuffed with Scots in the highest positions, including the PM and Chancellor, if you’ve forgotten already. Even Blair was arguably more of a Scot than an Englishman. Well, thank goodness the England-hating, England-denying New Labour regime is over now.

        As for the situation of Scotland now, under the coalition government, you’re still doing better than us in England, with higher per-capita public spending, thanks to the Barnett Formula: even higher than would be fair on a needs basis. But anyway, it sounds as though you’re happy about England bearing the brunt of the cuts – and fairness to the English doesn’t appear to even be a concept you can wrap your head round.

        Well, good luck to you: I actually don’t bear you any ill will. I hope you get your independence, if you want it – but all the polls seem to suggest most Scots don’t right now. Perhaps everyone realises you get a pretty good deal out of the Union.

        Comment by David — 20 August 2010 @ 4.05 pm

  5. “we’ve got to consider the substance of the matter: that substance being the real needs and wishes of the English people that the British political establishment has ignored for so long.”

    As an outsider this just seems really, well, funny. With the concentration of wealth in the South-East. with the key agencies of ther British State located in London (the BBC, Parliament, Monarchy, MI5 et, with the Olympics about to drain the coffers of community sports throughtout the rest of the UK and so on and on on, your argument just seems crazy.

    “Concentration of wealth in the south east”? What does this have to do with the English being denied self-determination? Nothing at all is the answer! It is a red herring! You are trying to make it sound like the entire south east of England is rolling in money. It isn’t; but even if it was what does this have to do with denying the English their self determination?

    “Key agencies”? Again, what does this have to do with the English nation being denied self-determination? Again, it has nothing to do with it!

    What does the Olympics have to do with deniel of equal rights to the English? It has nothing at all to do with it.

    The plain fact is the English nation is being denied it’s rights! Rights that scotsman Tony Blair was only too happy to give to scotland and wales, but not England! Gordon Brown and his cronies are carrying on that legacy.

    Comment by M Anderson — 13 March 2008 @ 8.25 pm | Reply

  6. Yesterday I got a call from the IPPR inviting me to a ‘key-note’ presentation on Britishness by Michael Wills, Ministry of Justice. They contacted me through the CEP, but only wanted to invite me. Creepy.

    They mentioned the articles I wrote criticising their Britishness/Englishness research.

    And on a couple of occasions MPs have emailed me direct to comment on articles I have written.

    So they are reading, beware…. Check under your car in the morning.

    Comment by Toque — 14 March 2008 @ 8.27 am | Reply

  7. There’s nothing wrong with being British, I’m just too English to wear a label.

    Comment by Patrick Harris — 14 March 2008 @ 11.33 am | Reply

  8. Hi David, thanks for your comments my relies are marked **)

    1) The higher public spending in Scotland is not only a reflection of the relative poverty of its inhabitants. Actually, I don’t know the full economics.

    ** I do. Its based on two things. One the endemic poverty and poor economics of our country, some call it ‘the Union dividend’ we live with. The second is thet geography of Scotland. For example providing – say – medical cover for people living in the Western Isles, or in Orkney – is ar more expensive and problematic than the concentrated urban landmass of England. This is true across other areas, education, housing, transport etc

    But there are areas of considerable deprivation in England, too.

    ** No doubt.

    England isn’t just the wealthy South-East, as you seemed to suggest in your first comment.

    ** No that’s true, but the South-East is both a massive concentration of wealth and massive drain on resources.

    The point is, in Scotland, they get many more benefits for their higher public-spending budget than we do in England, such as free social care and university tuition, and better funding for drug therapies in the NHS – including for chronic conditions such as cancer, etc., etc.

    ** That’s true but that is about our different polity, and its about democracy – we have had a movement for self-determination for over a century, culminating in the Claim of Right and then an overwhelming mandate in a referendum. Where’s the real momentum for any change in England? I dont know – what do the polls say?

    2) The North Sea Oil issue is a tired old Scottish-nationalist chestnut.

    ** No it’s not – its a right recognised in international law.

    ‘Scotland deserves higher public expenditure than England because it’s our oil that’s filling their coffers’.

    ** No, but what we dont need or deserve is to be constantly portrayed as appearing with our begging bowl – the starting premise of most of the English Nationalist movement.

    Well, either a Union exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then the oil belongs to all of us, and public expenditure should be distributed in proportion to need – which it isn’t being; or the Union doesn’t exist, in which case there would doubtless be protracted arguments about who it belongs to (the Scottish claim to own all of it is contested) plus they’d have to finance all their public expenditure from their own resources – net result, probably not much difference for Scotland; a lesser burden, but reduced income, for England.

    ** well dont worry Scottish oil has propped up the British State for three decades now. On this subject this is worh reading: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/04/oil_1.html as is this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

    3) Yes, of course, there are massively more English MPs than Scottish, although – I believe – still proportionately more Scottish MPs per head of population than English (although I may be wrong on that one).

    ** You are. This anomaly was altered by constitunecy reduction / alteration at the last election. If there are more (far more) English MPs than others – then the whole idea of the Scots having real influence in any meaningful way is just blown out of the water.

    But what does this prove? Scottish MPs still have no moral (and arguably, no legal) right to vote on England-only matters in Westminster (e.g. education, health, planning, transport, many cultural affairs, etc. etc.).

    ** I agree. So does the SNP who have a volunatry abstention in place.The answer to the West lothian Question is seperation.

    The people in Peterborough may feel pissed off at the British government (whose representatives they may perceive the RAF personnel to be) because they blame the government for allowing mass immigration.

    ** sorry this sounds bonkers

    Immigrants often get paid much lower wages for manual and menial jobs than English people are prepared to accept; but also, they’re competing for the better paid jobs. So all I’m saying is, perhaps there was an element of taking out resentment at the lack of job opportunities by directing this at other young people (the RAF personnel) who are perceived to be doing all right thank you very much while representing a government towards which people feel resentment and anger. Is that so hard to understand?

    ** yes it is, I dont think it makes sense, sorry

    However, as I say, I don’t know for sure that was the reason for the abuse. But there’s a lot of alienation from figures and symbols of authority; and part of the reason in my view is that the political system is so unrepresentative of and uninterested in English working class people and concerns.

    ** isnt the explanation for the ‘abuse’ more likley to be that we’ve just been engaged into an ilegal war that produced the biggest march (ever) in the UK and about which every single argument of the Anti-War Movement has been proved right?

    Gus A @ http://1820.org.uk

    Comment by Gus Abraham — 14 March 2008 @ 2.17 pm | Reply

  9. Thanks, Toque. Make sure you travel by taxi, and wear your dark glasses and wide-brimmed hat! Yes, I was only half joking with the Home Office anti-subversion unit bit – I know it did exist, and with this government’s paranoia, it doubtless still does in some shape or form. Give Wills hell on my behalf, won’t you! (Metaphor, you boffins out there; I wouldn’t wish such a fate on him really.)

    Comment by David — 14 March 2008 @ 3.33 pm | Reply

  10. Re comment by Patrick, above: I didn’t mean to imply there was anything wrong about being British – just so long as this doesn’t go hand in hand with consenting to the suppression of your Englishness. Your comment implies that your pride in being British is an Englishman’s pride, which I in fact share.

    Re Gus’s comments. Higher public spending in Scotland: the fact is everybody benefits from it in Scotland, not just the poorer sections of the population (to whom it would be unreasonable to begrudge it) or those in outlying areas. The fact that some who need it less in Scotland get it, while many who need it more in England don’t demonstrates that, in practice, the Union is dead on its feet already.

    As you say, it’s because you have your own democratic representation in Scotland, bankrolled by the English taxpayer (and yes, indirectly, North Sea Oil, too). Good for you! I wish we had the same in England. There isn’t yet a mass movement pressing for devolution or independence for England; and that’s because English people generally aren’t aware of the fiscal and democratic inequalities between themselves and the other nations of the UK. (For an interesting analysis of the polls about English opinion on this subject, read Gareth Young’s interesting article in OurKingdom.) The government is doing all it can to keep the English in their state of ignorance by misleading people into thinking that all its policies and laws that apply to England only are UK-wide. This pretence in turn is wrapped up in a denial of England per se as a distinct nation within the UK: England has to become Britain, the better to spuriously legitimise the government’s unaccountable governance of England – neither fairly elected nor able to be voted out in an England-only election. And I think it’s a bit naive to say that Scottish (and Welsh) MPs don’t unduly influence English affairs. Who is our PM, after all? And then look at the number of Scottish ministers there are! But the point is that the higher proportion of Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs than English ones could give Labour the balance of power in different circumstances; and also, in close votes where the government is in danger of losing, they still could. So Brown et al are driving all this Britishness nonsense in the attempt to legitimise and perpetuate their unjustified power base and, in Brown’s case, because at some weird, deranged level he actually believes in it.

    And re the abuse towards the airmen in Peterborough, we don’t actually know what the motivation of those involved were, do we? But if you don’t understand my hypothesis, there’s nothing more I can say to explain it. How much do you really understand about English ambivalence towards the British state and its symbols?

    Comment by David — 14 March 2008 @ 6.26 pm | Reply

  11. The unfair, discriminatory higher spending in scotland is not “based on endemic poverty, poor economics, and the geography of Scotland”; it’s based on the vindictive and criminal behaviour of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. The Barnett formula was not supposed to last for decades. How much supposed UK exchequer money did Brown send home to scotland when he was chancellor? Billions is the answer! He also sold England’s gold reserves and stole elderly English people’s pension funds! The scumbag should be strung up!

    Gus abraham”

    providing medical cover for people living in the Western Isles, or in Orkney – is a more expensive and problematic than the concentrated urban landmass of England. This is true across other areas, education, housing, transport

    Why should us English care? Scotland and England is no longer in any type of union. What does it have to do with us? Nothing. Why should we pay for the scots? And how come the scots go on and on and on about “their oil” and then turn around and cry wolf about poverty? Sounds like a right load of crap to me.
    Medical cover? What! Like cancer care you mean? If anything, it’s the English who are in need of more money.

    “the South-East is both a massive concentration of wealth and massive drain on resources”

    And? Your point being? How can south east England be wealthy and a drain on resources at the same time? This is a lie. England as a whole gets less money per head than scotland so how can the south east of England or infact anywhere in England be a drain on resources? More like the pretend socialist welfare victim North Britisher state is! That’s why scotland likes the Barnett formula. It can pay all of it’s victims with it.

    The point is, in Scotland, they get many more benefits for their higher public-spending budget than we do in England, such as free social care and university tuition, and better funding for drug therapies in the NHS – including for chronic conditions such as cancer, etc., etc.

    Gus abraham:

    That’s true but that is about our different polity, and its about democracy – we have had a movement for self-determination for over a century, culminating in the Claim of Right and then an overwhelming mandate in a referendum. Where’s the real momentum for any change in England? I dont know – what do the polls say?

    “It’s about democracy”? Aha! ha! ha! ha! No! It’s about deceit. It’s about criminal Gordon Brown and crook Tony Blair before him!
    As for your claim of an overwhelming mandate, that would be funny if it wasnt such a whopper! How many turned out for that referendum? 60% Nobody in their right mind can think that “overwhelming”. 74% of the 60% voted yes to a scottish parliament. A lot of people voted no.

    Where’s the real momentum for any change in England? I dont know – what do the polls say?

    If you think the referendum result in scotland was overwhelming then you obviously think the same of polls demanding an English parliament. But no, you decide to be sarcastic instead. Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Sounds like fear to me to.

    Gus abraham:

    [Scotland doesnt} need or deserve is to be constantly portrayed as appearing with our begging bowl – the starting premise of most of the English Nationalist movement.

    It certainly does deserve to be portrayed in a negative light. Oh hell yes!
    When will the scots grow up and stop whining? In this world, if you act in a certain way you’re going to get a reaction. That is the way the world is. What makes the scots so great that they dont have to adhere to the rules everyone else follows? Nothing!

    Gus abraham:

    Scottish oil has propped up the British State for three decades now.

    Ha! ha! So South East England has contributed nothing to the uk budget? I thought you said it was wealthy?

    Gus abraham:

    If there are more English MPs than others – then the whole idea of the Scots having real influence in any meaningful way is just blown out of the water.

    Utter rubbish. The UK cabinet make the really important decisions. And how come foundation hospitals, amongst other things, were forced onto England if English mps have such influence?

    Comment by M Anderson — 15 March 2008 @ 8.28 am | Reply

  12. All very amusing. I think your more than a little confused.

    Comment by Gus Abraham — 17 March 2008 @ 9.27 pm | Reply

  13. Confused? Is that what you spout when you have no answers? Sounds like a schoolboy reply to me.
    Oh, you really do have no answers. Ha! ha! Shame you can’t be more intelligent huh?

    Comment by M Anderson — 21 March 2008 @ 7.01 am | Reply

  14. […] fact that the Cross itself is red in colour contributes to the fear it provokes in some. As I have written elsewhere, red is the colour of violence owing to its association with blood; and this tie with blood may […]

    Pingback by What does the Cross of St. George say about England? « A National Conversation For England — 26 June 2010 @ 10.10 am | Reply

  15. English Social Union

    Left-wing English Nationalism
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/324938954362433/

    Comment by Byron Davies — 15 March 2015 @ 8.36 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: