What Britishness Can And Does Do That Englishness Doesn't Is To Discriminate Against All Citizens Of England

"What Englishness can't do that Britishness can do is appeal unambiguously to people of different ethnic origins," notes Janan Ganesh, political correspondent for The Economist.

It's the BBC reporting again.

But Janeh Ganesh is talking cobblers.

Britishness is not and was never intended to be a blanket nationality simply aimed at everybody living in England.

It was intended to be the blanket nationality of everybody living in England, Scotland and Wales.

With the will to do so, the word "English" could be substituted for the word "British" and an inclusive, civic English nationality be developed very easily.

New arrivals in England have "Britishness" rammed down their threats. So do longstayers

Whilst the PC crowd waste no opportunity to demonise Englishness as a non-inclusive, racist mind set.

But the English have long been a "mongrel" nation.

And all the better for it.

For a start the 'Anglo Saxons' never called themselves that, and the newcomers married into the existing population to form the early English - as proven by DNA studies in places like Oakington. And a 'Celtic' fringe? There isn't one. DNA proves that too. Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' linguistic label did not rewrite people's DNA. The Scots notion hopped over the water from Ireland, and the Bell Beaker People displaced around 90% of the island's Neanderthal population.

Insular? This island?

What Britishness does is place every man, woman and child in England at a serious disadvantage when compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and devolution have seen to that.

A lot of this disadvantage comes from the 1707 linguistic label 'Celtic', applied to the Welsh language and other 'insular' languages by Edward Lhuyd (the 'insular' label also being a Welsh invention although the English language, with its all its quirks and richness was created in England but doesn't qualify for the 'insular' label) and later expanded into a fake ethnicity for the Welsh, Scots and Irish. 

Wasn't Wales a web of competing factions and kingdoms, slugging it out internally, not a peaceful, united polity? Yep. Wasn't Ireland partitioned by a Welsh PM with avid backing of Protestant Scots? Yep. 

Didn't Scotland attempt its own colonisation project at Darien, blame the English (as always) for its failure, then enter the Union, thus creating Britishness as a nationality and being disproportionately active in the British Empire, then blaming the English (as always) for the whole enterprise? Yep. Wasn't the Poll Tax invented by a Scotsman called Douglas Mason and implemented there a year early at the behest of its own Secretary of State - and then the English (as always) were blamed? Yep. Weren't the Scottish Clearances carried out by the Scots, and then the English (as always) were blamed? Yep.

And meanwhile the most ethnically diverse country, England, gets less per capita spending via the Barnett Formula (even declared unfair to England by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett), meaning that those just above the poverty line in England pay nearly £10 per prescription item, while millionaires get then free in the far less ethnically diverse Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, money scooped largely from the tax payers in England.

Because everything historically was the fault of England, apparently.

And then there is the little question of the West Lothian Question, in which non-accountable MPs get to vote - and sometimes decisively - on legislation affecting only England.

You see what a mess the so-called UK is?

The Racist Element

I had an e-mail today asking if I thought there was a racist element at work regarding the current situation.

I think there is - but it's one of a number of things working against the people of England in the devolution game.

A few thoughts of mine...

1) The "racist" element...

England is a cosmopolitan country with a very long history. Since the Act of Union with Scotland, England has become absorbed into the bulk of the UK in a way that Scotland and Wales haven't.

For some reason, all the baggage of the old British Empire has been laid at England's door - despite the fact that it was actually a venture of England, Scotland, Wales and the whole of Ireland. And the Scots were disproportionately active in the running of the Empire. The trouble is that the other UK nations have heaped the blame on to England. And the poison has spread abroad.

Ridiculous.

The Empire was a BRITISH venture, in very different times, now judged by many to have been a "very bad thing". Fine. But it's gone. We can only learn the lessons from it, and scapegoating England, with the other nations smugly climbing into their pulpits to denounce us for something they were EQUALLY guilty of, is not on.

2) Celts and Anglo Saxons.

We believed that the traditional cultures of England, Scotland and Wales were largely based on traditions handed down from the Celts and Anglo Saxons. But that's been debunked by DNA studies. The Anglo Saxons (who didn't call themselves that) were a minority who married into the existing population to form the early English. Very inclusive, eh? And the Celts? No Celtic fringe, the whole thing seems to date from 1707 when Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd tried to bind together certain languages linguistically and called them 'Celtic'. So, it sticks in my crop a little when some Scots, Welsh, Irish and "Cornish" folk refer to themselves as "Celts" and their cultures as 'Celtic'. There is a similar, but much smaller problem proportionally, with some English people proclaiming themselves "Anglo Saxon". Surely English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are nationalities - not proclamations of pure bloodlines?!

Surely you don't have to be WHITE to be English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh?

In the case of the English, people proclaiming themselves "Anglo Saxon" are usually smacked on the snout with TV programmes like "100% English". But the Scots, Welsh and Irish are allowed to describe themselves as "Celts" and nobody says a word. Stinking double standards.

I sometimes get the impression that the people of England are treated as an "impure rabble" by this UK Government - and that is why we have health apartheid, the West Lothian Question etc - and as soon as anybody mentions England or Englishness the Government screeches "RACIST!!" Very odd. But UK PLC and the likes of Gordon Brown feathering his own country's nest must come first.

When Mr Brown rambles on about his plans for "Britain" he's usually talking about England by the way. He has very little authority over domestic policy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. His own constituents up in Scotland are largely unaffected by his actions. And he isn't democratically accountable to the people of the country he does rule. That's right, England.

Brown's in a flap, he's forcing public buildings in England to fly the Union Flag (they fly their own flags in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) purely for his own ends. He's not out to foster a sense of solidarity in England. Far from it. Divide and rule, that's his game. He's ramming the Union Flag down your throat because he's terrified you may realise what's going on in devolution (for some) Britain.

'Scotland is a proud, historic nation,' said Scotsman Tony Blair when beginning the asymmetric national devolution project. But not without skeletons and historical revisionism in its closet. So, what was England? Chopped liver, eh, Tony?

This leads us neatly to regional assemblies or 'English regions'? These are basically a recently devised way of dissolving England into easily-ruled, tinpot regions. The North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% NO to regionalisation. But it still continues apace. Non-elected, corrupt, money sapping bodies, taking powers from your elected local councils.

3) Who can be English?

English is a nationality and all citizens of England are entitled to be English. England is a country with traditions stretching back centuries and these should not be suppressed as the UK Government is always attempting to do. English culture, like St George's Day, is supposed to be "non-inclusive". Rubbish. That's just the Government trying to brainwash people. The culture of England is as inclusive as its politicians want it to be. Nobody moving here imagines that they are moving to a country with no history or traditions. It is a cynical ploy by the Government to divide and rule when the screeches of "RACIST!" are heard. I live in an ethnically mixed area, and I can honestly say that the only people I have heard debunking English traditions are white, chattering class, Nu Labour supporting idiots.

And remember whilst you are at it that Nu Labour is NOT Old Labour. Back in the 1980s, I was vehemently anti-Thatcher, a confirmed Socialist. But Nu Labour is NOT a Socialist party. The damage done to the NHS, social care and education in England under Nu Labour would have had us fainting with disbelief back in the 1980s!

And the writers of this blog are all care workers and nurses. We speak from experience. Not Okay when Thatcher tried it, but nowadays people take the high moral ground for voting for Nu Labour, who have done a damned sight worst.

Hypocrites.

To return to "Who Can Be English", I believe that the establishment of an English civic national identity is highly important. Scots and Welsh versions are already being worked on by their national executives. But remember Scotland and Wales have far lower levels of immigration, even proportionally, than England. England needs it much more, and yet the UK Government frequently 'others' England and Englishness.

One of the worst developments of recent years is the rise of the odious BNP. This is happening as that party makes hay with the government's and main opposition parties' skewed and unfair policies. It must be stopped. And its flag is the union flag, and sometimes the flags of each so-called 'UK' nation.

So much more I could write...

But remember that it cannot be right that millionaires in Wales don't pay prescription fees, whilst people scrimp and save for them in England. Without the Barnett Formula, deemed unfair to poor people across England by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett, Wales couldn't do that. And Rhodri Morgan saying, 'We've made the English jealous!!' Yes, with English taxpayers' money.

It cannot be right that public services and the NHS are more highly funded in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, via subsidies from England.

It cannot be right that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland.

It cannot be right that unaccountable MPs, including our PM, force legislation onto England that will not affect their own constituents, via the West Lothian Question.

It is not only the BNP that is racist. UK politics is heavy with it, all levelled against the people of England.

We do not live in a democracy.

If, after this, you believe that England is getting what it deserves, that it is an evil, corrupt country which has dominated the UK for far too long, then take a closer look at history. Once again, you will see that England is all too often scapegoated for the sins of Britain.

For instance, did you know that Ireland was partitioned under PM David Lloyd George, a Welshman, with avid backing from Scots Protestant MPs?

Blame for the past must be shared.

And England must be allowed parity with the other UK nations - or the so-called Union must end.

By the way, I'm very happy to proclaim myself English and I'm of English/Scots parentage, with a hefty dash of German not far back. But I was born in ENGLAND, as was my mother.

Take a little time to think things over. Stop streaming, turn off that podcast. Politicians are getting away with murder whilst the electorate lounges around.

And what are English MPs doing whilst all this is happening, you may ask? Most are riding the gravy train. Because they are never called to account for England.

'Britain! Britain! Britain!' Yep, the union of Empire. Weird, eh?

Because politically England does not exist.

Alex Thomson Of The UK Column And The Racist White Celtic Myth, Root Of Much Discrimination Against England In The So-Called UK...

                     

British? No, no - they're Scots and Welsh only. And they're 'Celts' (so sayeth Alex Thomson of UK Column) - and such victims of the horrendous English. All fine tales built on ancient white race myths and Mel Gibson's 'CRY FREEDOM!' These fine Scottish and Welsh people had nothing to do with the British Empire! (I jest)

Isn't it strange how the Celtic myth is so plainly a myth, and yet it infiltrates so much of UK life? Take the UK Column - an often interesting and rather alternative (no problem there) news site. Sadly, there is heavy 'Celtic' nonsense in the organisation, brought to bear by staff like Alex Thomson. 

The whole venture is rather strangely organised anyway, with a complete non-questioning of the dreadful discrimination against every living soul in the largest and most multi-ethnic 'UK' country of all - via asymmetric national devolution, the Barnett Formula, the resurgent West Lothian Question, etc - and a very heavy focus on those five million souls living in Scotland.

DNA studies have more than proved that the notion of Anglo Saxons replacing the entire population of what is now England, and a grand, unified 'Celtic' civilisation occupying the entire island before that, are bunk.

In fact, bunk originating with a Welshman in 1707, who was only talking about language similarities of Gaelic and Welsh to the supposed 'Celtic' languages.

Of course, people can still call themselves British, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or whatever - these are far more logical creations, but what drives the Celtic myth is largely jingoism - a sense of false pride, a vilification of the largest country within the UK, an appropriating of ancient British history, a victimhood narrative, a strong sense of exclusivity, and an insistence on special treatment.

Take the vilification, for example. Alex Thomson refers (negatively) to 'Anglo American banks'. Um, the 'Anglo' thing is piffle for a start - does he mean English or British? The most appropriate word would be British as the Scots were and are into all that - as they were with the British Empire - to a disproportionate level.

The DNA studies also call into doubt the notion that the 'olde English' derived all - or even most - of their language and culture from the minute number of invaders. It opens up fascinating questions.

But the powerful Celtic myth adherents will do all they can to crush them.

As far as the likes of Alex Thomson are concerned, his ancestors were wonderful, faintly mystical, white beings, who sounded like Clannad when they sang, tossed the caber, formed male voice choirs, and made pasties. They and their 'culture' (?) survive despite centuries of victimhood. So, DNA studies disagree? Who gives a stuff? The level of cognitive dissonance in the so-called 'UK' ensures that, up to now, there's never been much of a challenge.

And all this has made a powerful contribution to a tiny elite in the UK enjoying more funding (the Barnett Formula), far better democratic representation (asymmetric national devolution) and chances to interfere in the democracy of a far larger and far more ethnically diverse country (England). Ever heard of the (about to resurge) West Lothian Question? Ever checked out the 2003 Foundation Hospitals vote for England?

Interesting article from Prospects magazine, from 2006 - illustrating just how little we actually know about the history of these islands - and just how much DNA studies can tell us. A quick look at Wikipedia will show you just how fiercely this is resisted. I include the beginning of the article here, and a link to the full original at the bottom of this post:

Myths of British Ancestry:

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

Alex Thomson of UK Column - proud purveyor of the totally spurious Celtic myth - which has contributed to much division and unequal treatment in the so-called 'UK' - all levelled against what is unashamedly its most multi-ethnic country, England.

"Core British Values" - But Only In English Schools

There is now a possibility that something called "core British values" might be taught to 11-16 year olds. But only in England. Why only in England? England alone is not Britain. Because the government likes to shove "Britishness" down our throats as it fogs the issues surrounding the unfair devolution settlement, West Lothian Question etc., that's why.

Gordon Brown has been particularly vocal. But there is a man with ambition. He's not about to let a little thing like democracy get in his way.'British' is a very new nationality. It came about at the time of the union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. 

Scotland had just near-bankrupted itself with its Darien colonization attempt, and so joined England to have access to our markets. And was then disproportionately active in the British Empire. Majorly.

And that's when the 'British' nationality was born.

So, what are 'core British values'? Colonization?

And by the way, the Welsh were right in there with the Empire too. And was Wales a peaceful, united little country, before its incorporation into the Kingdom of England? No, it was riven with fierce battles and disputes.

And Celts? A 1707 linguistic label applied to a bunch of languages, not an ethnicity or history. It got romanticised and turned into a major industry and load of exclusive nonsense-pedalling in the centuries following.

To cap it all, Ireland was partitioned by a Welsh Prime Minister, with avid backing of Protestant Scots.

The BBC has run with the 'Core British Values' story, and consulted all sorts of worthies - including David Eaglesham of the SCOTTISH Secondary Teachers' Association. But the legislation won't apply in Scotland. So, why, if seeking irrelevant views, didn't the BBC consult a French or German or Russian or Australian or South African or Hungarian or Italian teaching organisation?

Because the BBC is in the government's pocket and likes to blur the facts of devolution, too.

The BBC's Scottish fixation is getting beyond a joke. Even their complaints department is based in Scotland - so people making points about this matter, and instances of anti-English bias in general, get short shrift, as I and several friends have found to our cost (one friend of mine contacted the Beeb about the lack of a national broadcasting service for England, and was ranted at by a chap called Fraser who stated that the BBC "did not want an England-only service").

Scotland, a country with a smaller population than an English county, let alone one of the undemocratic government regions we've had foisted on us (and which are shortly to replace our ancient counties), is dominating us and our national broadcasting service.

Creepy.

See the Beeb story here.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.