English Parliament Online is well worth a look. And of great interest is Arthur Aughey's piece on: Dicey believed that Home Rule would deliver for England the disadvantages of Celtic separatism without the advantages of Union. The CEP claims that the English are now required to sacrifice their legitimate claims to nationhood in the interests of maintaining a Union which satisfies only the needs of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.
What fascinates me the most about Aughey's piece is his use of the "Celtic" word. Now, we all know that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are not Celts. I'm half-Scots, and my Scots side contains several differing (and typical of Scots) elements.
We know that the "Celtic" thing is quite a recent invention.
So why does Arthur Aughey insist in perpetuating the myth? After all, these nations hardly have much loyalty to each other, do they? Look at Ireland, partitioned by a Welsh UK Prime Minister (England suffered the IRA bombings, of course); look at the Barnett Formula - each "Celtic" nation looking after its own ends...
There seems to be something very unhealthy in perpetuating the Celtic myth.
Surely it's far better to look at what is happening to each nation of the UK, including England, without resorting to a racist ancient white tribe myth which apparently binds together three of the nations, but excludes the largest?