General British politics discussion thread

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm a firm proponent of federalisation. It's been done with Germany. London could be a city sate and England could be divided into blocs of about 5 million people similar to the Duchies and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon and Norman times though I may be biased due to playing so much Crusader Kings.

When I was at the People's Vote marches in London, I had a lot of fun talking to people who'd brought regional flags and it seems a shame that these identities have been swallowed up by a "British" identity. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies so I don't see why there shouldn't be assemblies for Cornwall, Essex, Kent and so on. There'd still be a UK-wide Westminster Parliament in charge of foreign policy, trade, defence, etc but each region could make decisions about itself.

That was close to my proposal - but I would amalgamate Essex and East Anglia into Anglia, and Cornwall and Dumnonia into Cornwall and Devonia.

Would the Channel Islands fit into this?

breezy1985

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was close to my proposal - but I would amalgamate Essex and East Anglia into Anglia, and Cornwall and Dumnonia into Cornwall and Devonia.

Would the Channel Islands fit into this?

Do the channel islands not already have a form of devolved government

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was close to my proposal - but I would amalgamate Essex and East Anglia into Anglia, and Cornwall and Dumnonia into Cornwall and Devonia.

Would the Channel Islands fit into this?

I'm not putting this forward as is, necessarily. Just a thought for how things could work. There's bound to be many questions that need to be answered.

In any case, it's sadly a pipe dream.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not putting this forward as is, necessarily. Just a thought for how things could work. There's bound to be many questions that need to be answered.

In any case, it's sadly a pipe dream.

Well, yes.

But having regional assemblies of approximately equal size, and having equal powers and responsibilities, has a good basis for a good system.

The next level down - county councils and other local authorities would need substantial redesign as well, and would be part of any overall reform.

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

I have to wonder where you get this stuff from.

The English use the term British because they think it more politically correct. A more inclusive term than English.

The national front hijacked the English flag and the English identity and so British was considered more pc. Moderates are now reclaiming both of these.

That article I linked to makes it clear there was no such thing as a British identity even in the 19th century. People in England referred to themselves as English, Scottish people called themselves Scottish. It does seem like the idea of people being 'British' only came into vogue in the 1970s and later and it already seems to be quickly going back out of fashion again.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

That article I linked to makes it clear there was no such thing as a British identity even in the 19th century. People in England referred to themselves as English, Scottish people called themselves Scottish. It does seem like the idea of people being 'British' only came into vogue in the 1970s and later and it already seems to be quickly going back out of fashion again.

It came in to vogue at the same time as high levels of immigration.

Immigrants are awarded British Citizenship, so British is something that is neutral and unites everyone.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was close to my proposal - but I would amalgamate Essex and East Anglia into Anglia, and Cornwall and Dumnonia into Cornwall and Devonia.

Would the Channel Islands fit into this?

They would fit in the same way the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar do.

As in, they aren’t part of the U.K.

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

It came in to vogue at the same time as high levels of immigration.

Immigrants are awarded British Citizenship, so British is something that is neutral and unites everyone.

Indeed, but the word was never really intended to refer to people at all. In the past, it was really only used about legal structures like the British government vis-a-vis its relationship with the Empire (even citizenship and passports are quite a recent concept). Interesting that Brexit seems to be hastening the idea of the word going back out of fashion again.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, but the word was never really intended to refer to people at all. In the past, it was really only used about legal structures like the British government vis-a-vis its relationship with the Empire (even citizenship and passports are quite a recent concept). Interesting that Brexit seems to be hastening the idea of the word going back out of fashion again.

I don’t think it is Brexit so much as a general rise in nationalism, in all regions of the U.K.

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

I don’t think it is Brexit so much as a general rise in nationalism, in all regions of the U.K.

Yes, that's a fair point, though the referendum sharpened divisions within the union, something nobody seems to have factored in during the referendum campaign : what would happen if the result was very close and the four nations were divided on the issue?. There was almost an assumption it would be identical to 1975 and the four countries would be in agreement on what happens next.

This was yet another failure in the whole Brexit process (the fact that this scenario was barely even mentioned pre-referendum or was even understood).

Capt'n Midnight

breezy1985 wrote: »

Do the channel islands not already have a form of devolved government

Yes and Data Adequacy deals with the EU.
An Isle Of Man passport didn't have the freedom to travel, but that's moot now.


The North East rejected devolution back in 2004 but NI, Wales and Scotland voted yes.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes and Data Adequacy deals with the EU.
An Isle Of Man passport didn't have the freedom to travel, but that's moot now.


The North East rejected devolution back in 2004 but NI, Wales and Scotland voted yes.

It isn’t a devolved government. The channel islands are not part of the U.K.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you listen the Beatles 'A Day in the life - (I heard he news today)' (written by John Lennon) he uses the line 'the English Army had just won the war'. Clearly he did not entertain the term British. In the era he grew up in, most people would describe themselves as English, Welsh, or Scottish - as appropriate. The only ones that referred to themselves as 'British' were from the Empire - usually India.

British was not in general use in the 1950 to 1960s - I have no idea what changed. The queen was the Queen of England, not the Queen of Britain. She was head of the Church of England. The economy was controlled by the Bank of England. There was no Britain - Great or otherwise.

If you check on Google ngram you will find that "British Army" has always been used more than "English Army," including the 1950s and 1960s. Lennon is not a good representative here.

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

That article I linked to makes it clear there was no such thing as a British identity even in the 19th century. People in England referred to themselves as English, Scottish people called themselves Scottish. It does seem like the idea of people being 'British' only came into vogue in the 1970s and later and it already seems to be quickly going back out of fashion again.

"British" was a much more common word in the early part of the nineteenth century.Scotland was often called "North Britain" in the eighteenth an nineteenth centuries.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am talking about the post WW II period up until the early 1960s. Television was beginning to have its massive effect on discourse and popular culture after that.

Does England have a flag - or is it like the English passports? Both Scotland and Wales have a 'National' anthem, but England makes do with the accepted National anthem - more equivalence with English = British = English.

England has the St George's Cross, a red cross on a white background.

breezy1985

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

"British" was a much more common word in the early part of the nineteenth century.Scotland was often called "North Britain" in the eighteenth an nineteenth centuries.

I always found it telling that English people refer to Yorkshire which is in the middle of their country as "the north"

ThePanjandrum

pixelburp wrote: »

Heck, simply trying to use Scottish or Northern Irish banknotes in England gets pushback, depending on where you go (that there isn't a universal note ala the EU is insane but that's another story)

They aren't legal tender.

breezy1985

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

They aren't legal tender.

No they are not but I have had staff refuse them because they dont know Scotland and NI are the same country as England. I am talking about English born and raised people.


Had a bank teller didnt know between Belfast or Dublin which one was the Euro place and which one sterling

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

I always found it telling that English people refer to Yorkshire which is in the middle of their country as "the north"

Reminds me of a story of my father and grandfather at some B&B in Inverness. Think it was some time in the 1950s or possibly early 1960s..

Where are you from?
We’re from the south.
Are you from Edinburgh?
No. We're from London.
Ah, that’s okay then. Come on in..

ThePanjandrum

breezy1985 wrote: »

No they are not but I have had staff refuse them because they dont know Scotland and NI are the same country as England. I am talking about English born and raised people.


Had a bank teller didnt know between Belfast or Dublin which one was the Euro place and which one sterling

Scottish and Northern Irish notes aren't exactly common in England. Very few people would know the banks that are allowed to issue them, what the notes look like and how you tell that they are genuine. In such a case it's pretty sensible to refuse them rather than taking a fake or invalid note.


You can, after all, swap them in a bank which will transfer them back to their country of origin.


There are one or two Irish people who aren't good at geography too.

breezy1985

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Scottish and Northern Irish notes aren't exactly common in England. Very few people would know the banks that are allowed to issue them, what the notes look like and how you tell that they are genuine. In such a case it's pretty sensible to refuse them rather than taking a fake or invalid note.


You can, after all, swap them in a bank which will transfer them back to their country of origin.


There are one or two Irish people who aren't good at geography too.

Not what I was saying. I should have clarified it was staff who worked under me who told me when I asked why they refused to take the money that they said no because it was "foreign" and when questioned further were sure Scotland and England were not the same country.
Also they were very common in the tourist heavy part of London I worked in



And are you honestly excusing a British bank official not knowing what areas take sterling

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

I always found it telling that English people refer to Yorkshire which is in the middle of their country as "the north"

Geographically, Yorkshire is in the north of England, Scotland is Further North, so the saying is correct.

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Geographically, Yorkshire is in the north of England, Scotland is Further North, so the saying is correct.

Yes but I think the phrase adds to the English mentality of Scotland as a different country which it is not

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Yes but I think the phrase adds to the English mentality of Scotland as a different country which it is not

it is

Roanmore

Is time running out for BJ? The Daily Mail have now turned on him and seem to be pushing Gove.
I know Johnson seems to have a teflon coat but these stories seem to be getting more frequent and going to war with Cummings may not have been a wise move.

https://twitter.com/JamesKAArcher/status/1386550658480885761/photo/1

Leroy42

Johnson is fine, as long as the vaccine rollout continues as is. He will be forgiven for anything in the meantime.

What it may do is hasten his departure once Covid seems to have receded as a threat.

IMO

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnson is fine, as long as the vaccine rollout continues as is. He will be forgiven for anything in the meantime.

What it may do is hasten his departure once Covid seems to have receded as a threat.

IMO

I would agree with that. No one really wants a change in government at the moment so he is fairly safe, at least his job is. The metropolitan police may like a word though.....

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnson is fine, as long as the vaccine rollout continues as is. He will be forgiven for anything in the meantime.

What it may do is hasten his departure once Covid seems to have receded as a threat.

IMO

Even this is down mainly to propaganda though. Is any other leader in the world seeing a 'vaccine boost', even Joe Biden? The level of gaslighting from the Tory press is off the scale.

breezy1985

Strazdas wrote: »

Even this is down mainly to propaganda though. Is any other leader in the world seeing a 'vaccine boost', even Joe Biden? The level of gaslighting from the Tory press is off the scale.

The swift vaccine rollout was done because they were desperate due to the fact Johnson had one of the worst responses in Europe in the early days.
Once this is over and the Panorama investigations and the like start giving full comprehensive reviews of the Pandemic it won't look good for him

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Even this is down mainly to propaganda though. Is any other leader in the world seeing a 'vaccine boost', even Joe Biden? The level of gaslighting from the Tory press is off the scale.

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. There is no gaslighting. The U.K. has issues over 45,000,000 doses.