English Nationalism Takes a Step in the Wrong Direction

Gareth Young campaigner for an English Parliament, examines the English Democrats’ alliance with the white nationalist England First Party.

This was first published on Open Democracy,  under the title “English Nationalism vs British Nationalism”.

On Monday morning Nick Griffin, BNP leader, was interviewed on the BBC’s FiveLive Breakfast Show. “Isn’t your party full of neo-nazis?” asked Nicky Campbell. “No”, said Griffin, “Britain’s neo-nazis hate me, they say that I’ve sold out…They call me a liberal”.

One such group that hates the superficially more moderate and ‘liberal’ Nick Griffin is the England First Party (EFP) who describe the BNP leader as ‘fundamentally flawed and psychologically disfigured’ and object to Griffin’s ‘watering down of nationalist principles’.

Although denials have been issued on a number of occasions it has been something of an open secret that the English Democrats Party (EDP) have been courting the EFP for a number of years.  Indeed, these very accusations surfaced when the EDP’s London Mayoral candidate Matt O’Connor walked out whilst claiming “I realised the English Democrats were working with ‘England First’ and had no choice other than to resign there and then.”

Even given the previous, mostly anecdotal, evidence I was astounded, and horrified, to learn that the friendship between the EDP’s election strategist, Steve Uncles, and the EFP’s Mark Cotterill had developed into a public and cordial alliance between the two parties in the North West of England. The first inkling of this entente cordial came in April when an EDP member in the North West informed me that they had received an official letter on EDP headed paper signed by Mark Cotterill. For an EDP member to receive a letter from an official of another party must have come as something of a shock given that the EDP website explicitly states that the ‘English Democrats have no links with the BNP or any other political party’.

Later in April came news that Councillor Michael Johnson, formerly of the EFP, was to join the EDP to stand against the BNP in Lancashire. “Nick Griffin stands a very good chance of getting in”, warned Councillor Johnson, “Him getting into Europe on a Lancashire ticket will be a nightmare and will spark a BNP revival.”

Then at the beginning of May the EFP website displayed a picture of EFP activists (Les Andrews, Mark Cotterill and Peter Rushton) proudly delivering EDP leaflets for the European Elections. This was followed by an EFP account of the EDP’s press conference in Darwen, Lancashire, at which the controversial Peter Rushton gave a speech.

So what has pushed the avowedly civic nationalist EDP into the cold embrace of white nationalists? In a word, or at least in an acronym, it is the BNP.

It has long been the EDP’s policy to extract English nationalists “firstly from UKIP” and then “from the BNP”, with the aim of making converts to English nationalism, and not only BNP and UKIP members themselves but potentially the parties they desert. The inherent risks of such a policy to the broader civic movement for an English parliament appear to be lost on a desperate EDP leadership who at last count had loaned the party £101,447 of their own money (Robin Tilbrook, £54,447; Steve Uncles, £17,000; Christine Constable, £30,000) with little by way of electoral reward. The small victories that have come the EDP’s way in recent times are on account of their status as a BNP ‘spoiler party’, a status not overlooked by BNP activists who have accused the EDP of using the BNP’s mailing list to poach their members.

For the EDP the electoral battleground can be mapped as an ideological battle between English and British identity, and between English and British nationalists; a simplistic and naive view at best, but one which according to Searchlight the EFP share:

Another barrier is the genuine ideological difference between the EFP and the BNP over “English” and “British” nationalism which, though it might seem of minor importance outside far-right circles, certainly contains the potential for a major ideological split. There are certainly people in the BNP who would prefer to “ditch Scotland” if not Wales, especially since the recent internal crisis in which Scottish activists were prominent opponents of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader. The BNP’s monthly magazine Identity has recently attempted to jump on the “English” nationalism bandwagon so as not to be usurped by the EFP not to mention the larger English Democrats party, which recently adopted Matt O’Connor, founder of Fathers 4 Justice, as its candidate in the London mayoral election.

There’s no room for dual identity on this turf, no place for hyphonated anglo-brits in this polarised world; you’re either English and with us, or British and against us.  From amongst the numerous tag-lines registered by the EDP come the following party descriptions which seem to belie their position as a unionist party:

  • ENGLISH, british, or EUropean? YOU decide!
  • ENGLISH DEMOCRATS – ENGLISH? british? YOU decide!
  • ENGLISH or british – YOU decide!

The hard work that many civic nationalists have expended on promoting a plural inclusive English identity (eg. Kingsnorth, Perryman) could be undone at a stroke if the EDP are successful in beating the BNP at the ballot box using the doorstepping expertise of the EFP.  The British far-right will have a successor and the usurper will be white and English, not British. Under these circumstances it is quite conceivable that the BNP might water down its Britishness, become less vociferous in its unionism, or fragment completely. A victory of sorts for English nationalism over British nationalism, but vindication too for those who like to characterise English nationalism in particular as exclusive and dangerous whilst asserting ‘Britishness’ as the only plural, inclusive, catchall identity.

It should be stressed that these circumstances are unlikely. More likely than not the EDP-EFP alliance will count their success in councillors rather than MEPs, and the watching political commentariat will measure their virtue only as BNP spoiler parties. However, with a membership that has passed the 3,000 mark, and with coverage that guarantees them political party broadcasts, it would be unwise to dismiss the EDP’s future potential if only because of the growing populism of English nationalism.

I have a feeling that the EDP may have staked their very future on this unwise pact, but if not their future then certainly their credentials as a civic nationalist party are destroyed.   The EDP’s satellite organisation, The English Lobby, which raises funds for the EDP by suing people who suggest that the English flag is offensive or that St George’s Day is absurd, may well have an upsurge in work now that the EDP – England’s largest nationalist party – has itself climbed into bed with the very people who make our flag and national day objectionable to so many. Their judge, jury and executioner will be the voters of the North West of England.  English nationalism or British nationalism?  In the immortal words of Harry Hill: “But what’s best? There’s only one way to find out…FIGHT!”

Please Note - If you are considering commenting on this article then please bear in mind the warning on the EDP’s website: The EDP takes a hard line on anyone suggesting the English Democrats are racist and will seek legal remedy for anyone slandering the party in this way.

39 comments on “English Nationalism Takes a Step in the Wrong Direction

  1. Billy the Militant Fish on said:

    You would think EDP would try and mirror the civic nationalist movement in Wales or Scotland, which is, whilst not socialist, a left leaning and inclusive form of civic nationalism, particularly in Wales. Given the constitutional changes to the UK in recent times, and the inevitable changes to come, you could imagine a place in the spectrum for such a party.

    Yet the reality appears to be a right-wing exclusive nationalism. Mixing it with the white nationalists is a dangerous game to play for a party keen to promote their ‘respectability’.

  2. M Anderson on said:

    See what I don’t understand is why you *er-hem* socialists aren’t standing up for the people of England! All I hear is…well, I don’t hear anything. No, I was wrong! I hear something stirring. Oh but of course its only the bigotry coming out. When you have a chance to spout off about England or the English in a negative light I hear plenty. So, in reality you’re not socialists, you are fascists. Oh don’t fret it’ll come out in the wash jimmy.

  3. Billy the Militant Fish on said:

    4 – you clearly don’t understand socialism. Socialism is about standing up for the working people, regardless of nationality.

    What should we be ‘standing up for the people of England’, as opposed to working people, about? Really, I’m intrigued.

  4. Maria on said:

    I think it’s disgusting! But let’s not start this instinctive “the English are awful, the Scots and Welsh lovely” thing which so often mars these threads. It all starts to seem like Prigs Anonymous. Racism exists in all three UK nations – look at Lucy Newman, recently horrendously attacked in Scotland simply for SOUNDING English!

    I am very disappointed with the EDP – but one of the main problems with English nationalism lies with the UK Government’s resolute refusal to encourage any form of inclusive English civic nationalism, and indeed to deny England exists and to demonise it at every opportunity.

    Of course, this suits the Member of Parliament for Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath down to the ground.

    As it does the chattering classes and nose-in-the-trough MPs.

    Health apartheid, the West Lothian Question, and the Barnett Formula are concrete examples of racism in the UK today. And charges of racism can be brought on grounds of discrimination against any nationality, whatever its composition.

    The UK Government wilfully discriminates against England at every opportunity.

    And England is blamed for all the perceived sins of Britain – including the partitioning of Ireland (David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of the time was WELSH) and the British Empire (although the other nations were willingly involved up to their eyeballs, the Scots disproportionately so).

    The UK Government needs to take care of English nationalism, giving it inclusive national and civic outlets – just as it has done with Scotland and Wales. Sadly, as we have seen with Scotland and Wales, it won’t do away with racism. It won’t do away with pathetic juvenile behaviour (remember Rhodri Morgan screeching “At last we’ve made the English jealous!” when Wales abolished prescription charges?).

    But things will be a darn sight better!

    Domestic parliaments for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Or break up the so-called Union which is no longer a union anyway.

    Either way England and Englishness will be allowed to breathe and we can work on an inclusive civic English nationalism and move forward.

  5. Maria on said:

    “Billy The Militant Fish” writes: “you clearly don’t understand socialism. Socialism is about standing up for the working people, regardless of nationality.

    What should we be ’standing up for the people of England’, as opposed to working people, about? Really, I’m intrigued.”

    I thought socialism was about equality? And as this thread is about English nationalism, that it was appropriate to discuss England, health aparheid, the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula, etc?

    Discrimination by the UK Government against the people of England, felt most acutely by poorer workers and the unemployed?

    I really thought genuine socialists would be concerned.

  6. Billy the Militant Fish on said:

    Maria – my comment was aimed at M Anderson at 4, unless you are one and the same. It was clear my comment was not in response to your post, given I posted it before yours.

    The Barnett Formula is legitimate, and of course the formula does not offer one standardised rate for the whole of England, but takes into account economic disparities between regions. Wales in particular was underfunded for generations, as demonstrated by the fact it is still the poorest nation within the union. ‘Economic apartheid’ is again a false proposition – health care is devolved, hence differences between constituent regions, yet to claim this is discriminatory towards the English is misleading. If we use Wales as the example again, whilst prescriptions have been free for some time, waiting lists in Wales are significantly longer than in England. Is this discrimination? No, it is devolution in action.

    The West Lothian Question is a valid point to raise. It does indeed need looking at, although I would again dispute this can be defined, in any way, shape, or form, as discrimination. Rather, it is a constitutional anomaly caused by the devolution process. As the union further dissolves, such temporary constitutional imperfections will disappear.

    Socialism is the politics of working class emancipation, and rejects identity politics, such as racial or chauvinistic nationalism, or an inward looking civic nationalism, as this divides rather than unites the working class. Socialism is about equality, but rather it is about tackling the real economic inequality that is evident in the world, not the perceived imaginary inequalities thrown up by petty identity politics.

    Is the current constitutional state of the UK imperfect? Yes. Is it discrimination against the English majority? No. Lest you forget, England is overall the wealthiest constituent part of the UK. But if we look at England in the abstract, there is great economic disparity between communities like, say, Rotherham, and, for example, Virginia Waters. This is the inequality that needs tackling, not the imagined sleights you appear to see evidence of.

  7. Guess on said:

    And if these English nationalists gain power will they be nationalising the monopoly private retailers, service providers, banks and multi-nationals that oppress England and its workers or simply taking money off them to police the place?

  8. Toque on said:

    The Barnett Formula is legitimate, and of course the formula does not offer one standardised rate for the whole of England, but takes into account economic disparities between regions.

    The Barnett Formula does no such thing. What the Barnett Formula does is allocate money to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the basis of a crude population-based calculation. It has no bearing on how money is distributed within England. Barnett therefore makes ‘English spending’ (in reality British spending on English departments) proportionate to spending in the devolved nations of the UK. However, due to the Celtic bias Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get disproportionately more (per head of population). Therefore it is not even legitimate, so every part of your statement italicised above is factually incorrect.

    If you wanted a fair funding formula then you would base it on social need.

  9. english_republic on said:

    As an English Nationalist myself, I’m disappointed that the English Democrats haven’t seen fit to release a statement quashing any idea that they would affiliate themselves (however tenuously) with the far-right. I put this down to political naivity more than anything else. Hopefully, following the good response since their PPB, they won’t have to keep finding support from the gutter and can move forward as a progressive, civic nationalist party.

  10. I think this was a very intereting articel from Gareth.

    the EDP are a party built around a perfectly legitimate democratric aspiration for an English parliament, and thus would naturally sit as a sister party to Plaid Cymru, Mebyon Kernow or the SNP.

    I don’t think they are a racist party, and they have stood black and Asian candidates, but unfortunataly they have made the strategicly mistaken, as well as down right wrong, path of trying to compete for the UKIP type vote by banging on about immigration.

    This lash up with the white nationalist England First Party is also profoundly mistaken, and I think flows from the strategic decision of the EDP to position themselves as a right wing party, depsite the fact that many potential supporters of the idea of an English parliament are not right wing.

    Unless the EDP move to correct this mistake and distance themselves from the EFP racists, it will confirm many people’s prejudices that talking about England is a fig-leaf for racism. As collateral damage the EDP run the risk of undoing and undermining the work of those of us – who seek to promote a non-ethnic, inclusive vision of Englishness, based upon acceptance and celebration of the current multi-racial reality of modern England.

  11. #11 “Hopefully, following the good response since their PPB, they won’t have to keep finding support from the gutter and can move forward as a progressive, civic nationalist party.”

    I just watched the party political broadcast, and generally it was pretty good at explaining the constitutinal issue. I am personally unhappy with the emphasis placed on illegal immigration being a problem, but that is not worse than you would see in a Tory, or even labour, broadcast.

  12. Andy
    this is utter nonsense. English nationalism by its very nature plays to the right. That these people are anti foreigner is totally consistent with its first premise. The idea that the flag of st george can be used by the left is fantasy land, end of story.

  13. #14

    But the EDP are not a left party, and I have never claimed they were.

    They could however potentially be a party analogous to Plaid, MK, or the SNP, expressing a civic democratic nationalism within the political mainstream.

    there is a difference between that sort of constitutional civic nationalism, and the far right racism of the England First party.

    Unless the SWP are now claiming that Plaid Cymru are a racist party as well ??? Nothing would suprise me.

  14. PhilW on said:

    All this stuff about “English identity” and “British identity” should be “alien” to any person who calls themselves socialist: we should oppose “identity politics” even amongst oppressed nations, let alone oppressor ones, like England. Such an approach inevitably leads to the right, as your account here admirably shows. Have you learnt nothing from the retreat into identity politics of the 1980s?

  15. #16

    Philw, if you were correct that “Such an approach inevitably leads to the right,” can you explain why both Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow are unambiguously parties of the centre-left?

    Indeed back in the day, the origins of Plaid Cymru were as a right wing party, and they have become progressively more social democratic as the party has developed deeper roots in Welsh society.

  16. Francis on said:

    Fairness to all is the socialist creed – except for the English. Alas, for your credibility the BNP is the most left wing of all if you actually examine their policies instead of regurgitating rubbish.

    And what is the problem about limiting immigration when the infrastructure cannot support the population at the moment. I know you lot don’t like logic, but eventually even you must agree there are too many people for too little support. So what’s your solution …

    and there are very few WORKING CLASS people left these days, and I suspect that includes you. I define WORKING CLASS as those that are engaged in productive work – and I don’t include social workers and the like in that description.

    Too often you lot sound like a loud of the very young students I fell over at uni; ignorantly waving the red flag – and I would not be surprised to find out that is exactly what you are.

  17. What on earth do you expect? All nationalist politics requires a sense of victimhood, a sense that one’s own group is being constrained, oppressed or otherwise pushed about by some more powerful “other”. For Scottish and Welsh nationalists, that “other” is “England” (for the more enlightened of them), or “the English” (for the more bigoted of them). And there is a case which can be made for that view (although, personally, I have no wish to see our small island scarred with state borders). But English nationalism? The English as a “nation” are not oppressed by anyone. So of course “English nationalists” have to engage in windmill-tilting – against “political correctness”, imagined threats to our “culture”, and, of course “uncontrolled mass immigration”. In other words, they summon up all the usual bogeymen routinely called upon to frighten the Daily Express-reading classes at their breakfast tables every morning.

    Of course, if the Union breaks up, then the rump state, England, will need its Parliament – Westminster will serve the purpose, I’m sure. But until then, why not just pick some bits of English culture you like and enjoy them. There’s something for everyone: Cheddar cheese, Henry Purcell, real ale, English football, granary bread, multicultural London, Marmite, secularism, Stonehenge… There’s more to Englishness than political posturing.

  18. “but unfortunataly they have made the strategicly mistaken, as well as down right wrong, path of trying to compete for the UKIP type vote by banging on about immigration.”

    I love the use of ‘unfortunately’ and ‘strategically mistaken’ here.

  19. PhilW on said:

    #17 Because Wales is (historically at least: I’m not sure about now…) an oppressed nation. In case you hadn’t noticed, the oppressed tend to ally with the left. The England is not an oppressed nation, but an oppressor.

  20. Michael

    #20

    Don’t you think it is unfortunate and stategically mistaken that people who are primarily interested in campaigning for an English parliament have given succour and support to a disfunctional group of neo-nazis, like the England First Party?

    Don’t you think that the democratic demand that there should be an English parliament within the UK, giving constitutional parity with Scotland is a progressive one? Or do you think it is correct that MPs for Scottosh and Welsh constituncies should vote on matters for England that don’t affect their own constituents?

    Do you think it is fair that prescriptions charges will be abolished in Sdotland, wales and Norther Ireland, but MPs with Scotish and Weslsh constituences vote to maintain prescriptions charges in England?

    It seems a reasonable and democratic demand to me that there shoudl be a constitutional resolution of the fact that England is only governed by the UK parliament and UK executive, which the other three nations in the UK have devolved administration.

    And therefore, given that the constitional issue is a reasonable one, then if a political party that has been set up primarily to campaign over that reasonable and sensible basis vears off towards accomodating racism then that strikes me as both unfortunate, in the sense that it bolsters racisml and strategically mistaken, in the sense that it undermines the campaign for an English parliament.

    What do you think? Do you think the current constitutional situation is equitable? And if it is neither equitable nor democratic, then isn’t it the traditional role of the left to champion democracy and equity.

    I could point out that considering that the BME popualtion of England is much greater than the BME population of Scotland or Wales, then there is actually a racial inequality that the current inequity on NHS funding disproportionately affects BME communities.

  21. #22

    pathetic.

    You have had to revise the facts to fit your “theory”.

    Watch the film Zulu, one side are black Africans, the ones in the red coats were Welsh. the Welsh and Scots are just as much “oppressor nations” as the English have been. And within the UK, the structural discrimination against the Welsh language and culture was of the same stripe as the discrimination against English regional dialects and culture.

    the incorporation of England and Wales into a single state occured at a time before modern nations and industrial society occured, and the Welsh and English rulers were interchangeble. The supression of the Welsh Language was carried out by other Welsh people, not by the English.

  22. #25

    The racial inequality, is the fact that there is a higher proportion of black and Asian people in England, so taken over the Uk population as a whole, any structural bias in health service spending towardrs Wales and Scotland will proportionatly favour white people in Scotland and Wales over BME communities in England.

    But michael, you are so determined to find racism where none exists that you have become a self-parodying fool.

  23. #25

    How can Michel Rosen wilfully misinterpret my very clear sentance at #23 “there is actually a racial inequality that the current inequity on NHS funding disproportionately affects BME communities.

    to be anything other than a reference to a structural imbalance that disproportionately affects black and asian communities living in Engalnd.

    But he prefers to make coat trailing hints, and make insinuating, snide smears about how he is “boggling”, insinuating that there is something racist that only he can sniff, but of course this is just a smear from him, because there is nothing there..

    This is the man who accused me of “blatant racism” on a previous thread becasue I said that England exists! Even people who agreed with the main thrust of his political arguement said they thought his slurs against me were despicable and that he should apologise.

    i think it is absolutely shameful for Michael Rosen to be seeking to tar me with accusations of racism, when I am a committed anti-racist campaigner. And he totally dishonestly does this just becasue i have a different view from him about how people experience national identity.

    Michael should apologise, and grow up.

  24. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Re Andy’s last post on Michael Rosen – is that any surprise? Rosen seems to spend all day, every day, floating around various websites accusing people of racism, even on the grounds that there is no such thing as race scientifically, so to even use the word is racist. An occasional episode of this could be put down to ‘winding people up for a laugh’, but the frequency and duration of this behaviour from Rosen suggest [CONTENT DELETED].

  25. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Try this – maybe not now, but in a few days when he’s forgotten about this – reply to him that the idea of ‘racism’ is itself ‘racist’ because it acknowledges the concept of race. He’ll ‘go off on one’. Keep him at it – get a few friends to work shifts, and he’ll be arguing with you round the clock for days.

    [CONTENT DELETED]

  26. #18

    “and there are very few WORKING CLASS people left these days, and I suspect that includes you. I define WORKING CLASS as those that are engaged in productive work – and I don’t include social workers and the like in that description.”

    Yeah, very few people working, Francis … Only around half the UK population engaged in paid employment – hardly any at all, really. All these social workers, hey, looking after kids and what – bet they go home at the end of the day thinking, whoopee this is a wheeze, nothing productive about helping vulnerable people, what a doddle.

  27. Ah, Jock. Nice to see you again. I had no idea that you had taken up the job of cybercop, popping up to sort out who has the right to say what and where. And very good on the personal stuff – posted anonymously by PC Jock, of course, so you’re safe there.

    Andy, you don’t have to answer my original question. Don’t worry about it.

  28. #31

    Miachel, your original question was

    Just off to bed, so can’t reply in full…and am still boggling over:

    “a racial inequality”

    ‘racial’? Which race is that?

    For any fairminded person reading what i actually wrote, instead of coming to the issue with their own warped prejudice, the racial inequality I was referring to was discrimination againt black and ethnic minority people living in England.

    In the recent court case by Southall Black Sisters they esatblished a legal principle that the decision of a local authority will be unlawful if it is taken without due regard to its impact on racial inequality.

    On that bases, and given that the current constitutional arramgement means that people living in England have a worse deal in terms of government spending per head, access to drugs on the NHS, amount spent per child in education, the money spent on schools dinners, tuition fees for university, and a nunber of other areas. And given that the population of England includes a much higher number of ethnic minority people than the population of Scotland, then the constitutional position would actually fail an equalities impact survey.

  29. paulv on said:

    The Scots and Welsh propose to get rid of prescription charges, presumably because they think this will be popular, and then the English, instead of emulating them, call for a separate parliament. I can only assume the reasons to be: a) we don’t want to pay for free prescriptions in Scotland and Wales. b) an English parliament would have voted against them too.

    This is simplistic on all sorts of levels, but what’s wrong with the idea of a campaign to restore the free use of the health service as envisaged by the founders.

  30. M Anderson on said:

    “You clearly don’t understand socialism. Socialism is about standing up for the working people, regardless of nationality. What should we be ’standing up for the people of England’, as opposed to working people, about? Really, I’m intrigued.”

    I understand socialism perfectly. Okay. I suppose i’ll have to explain it to you! There are working people in England. Why aren’t you standing up for them?
    Obviously, my previous post proved the fact that a lot of people who label themselves socialists are anything but. You can use childish semantics all you like. It makes no difference to me. Trying to worm your way out of an answer just proves your immaturity. To me, and a lot of other people.
    The infantile behaviour towards the English as a people, and England as a country is pathetic.

    “Is the current constitutional state of the UK imperfect? Yes. Is it discrimination against the English majority? No. Lest you forget, England is overall the wealthiest constituent part of the UK”

    Ha! ha! What does being “the wealthiest constituent part of the UK” have to do with being discrimated against as a nation? Nothing at all! Playing childish semantics doesn’t mean you won the argument. Then again, you don’t sound like you can hack it when it comes to debating.

    How old are you? I suppose your name gives it away.

  31. Billy the Militant Fish on said:

    M Anderson – you weren’t a fan of The Viz in the eighties then?

    I’m Welsh. We spent eighteen years under a Tory government we didn’t elect. The community I live in lost all it’s heavy industry, which was the main employment in the area. The 80’s and 90’s were a grim period, and even now the scars of Thatcher are still visible.

    I don’t claim this is distinctive to Wales. Far from it – working class communities the length and breadth of the UK suffered. But devolution was a godsend, however half-arsed and in need of reform it is. It ensures we have some degree of self-determination. For this reason, and for the need to create a federal structure, I have always supported calls for an English assembly/parliament. Now, this relatively new phenomena of English Nationalism doesn’t strike me as being about emancipation; rather, it appears to be a small group of reactionaries angry at dominance lost. The constitutional state of the UK needs reforming, agreed, but the self-pitying ‘I’m so persecuted’ attitude you display, something you have in common with white nationalism, will win you no sympathy.

  32. M Anderson on said:

    Er-hem, bill the fish, you do not seem to have tackled my points at all!

    “I’m Welsh. We spent eighteen years under a Tory government we didn’t elect. The community I live in lost all it’s heavy industry, which was the main employment in the area. The 80’s and 90’s were a grim period, and even now the scars of Thatcher are still visible.”

    So this isn’t self-pity and an ‘I’m so persecuted’ attitude then? Oh! It’s only the English who have this attitude huh? Go on admit it. Thatcher was out to get you wasn’t she? Believe it or not England was affected by her policies to.
    As far as devolution being a godsend I would say the vast majority of English people have no problem with that. This is borne out by the fact that the English did not object to the welsh assembly vote. As you well know, English folk object to the blatent discrimination since. We didn’t stick our noses in and say why do you need a welsh assembly? It’ll cost too much! We don’t need another lot of politicians blah blah blah. Oh get realistic. Show me the posts where English nationalists are whining over lost dominance! You are making that up. “reactionaries”? Ha! ha! Yeah reactionaries. So how many holiday cottages have we burnt to the ground? None!
    I do not have an “i’m so persecuted” attitude. I have never said I am persecuted once. The facts are the facts. It isn’t my fault that you want to deny what your so-called “keltiq” comrades are doing.

    There are working people in England. Why aren’t you standing up for them?
    What does being “the wealthiest constituent part of the UK” have to do with being discrimated against as a nation? Besides that, I was under the impression that scotland owned all the oil which is “worth a lot yer ken?”

    Are you sure? Not one person in Wales voted Tory ah? Well I never.
    I’m English. We have spent years under a wannabe “keltiq” government we didn’t elect. (More people in England voted for the conservatives than any other party) We have a prime minister we didn’t elect. Before that we had a prime minister we didn’t want. The country I love has been fleeced. It has been a grim period since 1997 and even now the scars of Blair, Prescott, Darling, Reid, and corrupt b*stard mr speaker are evident. I haven’t even mentioned the thoroughly discredited and disowned Barnett formula, the West Lothian question, discrimination against English cancer patients and English elderly or said wannabe “keltiq” governments refusal to even talk about English self-determination.

    “Oppressor nations”? Ha! ha! Gawd! You pinkos love your god-damned terminology. Oh go on, enlighten me how does the country of England “oppress” people? I am not referring to any time in the past; I am talking about present day.

    No. 18:
    “And what is the problem about limiting immigration…?” No problem. Even Trevor Phillips agrees with you. As long as it’s limiting white immigrants that is.
    Well, looky here. Trevor Phillips said…”[England] faces a wave of white racists flooding in from Eastern Europe…”
    Trevor Phillips said many arrivals from former Soviet countries displayed prejudice against black people.
    Some eastern European people have attitudes to black people that date back to the Fifties, and that is not acceptable.’

    “a wave” [of white racists] “Flooding in[to England]” What a hypocrite. What a bigot. What a stereotyper. If anyone is prejudiced it’s Phillips.

  33. Stephen Gash on said:

    #5 “you clearly don’t understand socialism. Socialism is about standing up for the working people, regardless of nationality.”

    Socialism usually kills people in their millions, regardless of nationality. You clearly don’t understand history.

    Please feel free to hurl abuse, that’s the usual prelude to hurling stones, bullets…death.

  34. Stephen Gash on said:

    #12 “but unfortunataly they have made the strategicly mistaken, as well as down right wrong, path of trying to compete for the UKIP type vote by banging on about immigration.”

    Like Labour and the Tories then?!

    I agree with most of the rest of your post, sadly, but people should move on from using the hackneyed terms “left” and “right”.

    In my experience socialists and communists have teamed up with Muslims against the West. Is hanging somebody for being homosexual left wing or right wing?