|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 16, 2017 19:08:07 GMT
What's wrong with being British first and English second? Sure there is an issue about the discontinuity of all this British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish stuff, but this discontinuity doesn't make being British the problem. Nothing if everyone starts on the same foot But the elision of England/Britain historically is quite frankly undeniable. It's treated very much as the British ball is an English ball and we're taking it and going home if people don't play by our rules, they must be fair, we made them! And those other three, Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish, well, they're not really British, are they? How could they be? They're not English. England needs therapy! Now obviously that is a generalisation but it IS one I meet pretty regularly. We can talk about how the union of Scotland and England was complex and so on but we've moved beyond noble and monarchial politics and the Darien scheme and how the Stuarts actually caused all this etc. On the ground, now, even with devolution, none of the other three countries are seen as equals by Westminster.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 16, 2017 20:19:29 GMT
I'm American first, then Tennessean. But I know a lot of folks who would drown if they stood out in the rain.
Even some like that round here.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 16, 2017 21:13:19 GMT
I'm American first, then Tennessean. But I know a lot of folks who would drown if they stood out in the rain. Even some like that round here. Nothing wrong with what you are and profess to be, but how many people from New York or Alaska or Ohio would see you as not a proper American because you're not from their state?
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 16, 2017 21:35:18 GMT
I'm American first, then Tennessean. But I know a lot of folks who would drown if they stood out in the rain. Even some like that round here. Nothing wrong with what you are and profess to be, but how many people from New York or Alaska or Ohio would see you as not a proper American because you're not from their state? I don't think it's that the English would say or consciously think Scots/Irish etc were not British, indeed I'd expect them to say on the whole the opposite, but I would agree the English then go on to act as if Scots/Irish etc are not British. But then I think it's more than even that, the south of England regards the north of England as irrelevant too. Basically if your not in London of The Home Counties... I think the problem just gets worse the further away you are from those.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 16, 2017 21:42:38 GMT
Nothing wrong with what you are and profess to be, but how many people from New York or Alaska or Ohio would see you as not a proper American because you're not from their state? I don't think it's that the English would say or consciously think Scots/Irish etc were not British, indeed I'd expect them to say on the whole the opposite, but I would agree the English then go on to act as if Scots/Irish etc are not British. But then I think it's more than even that, the south of England regards the north of England as irrelevant too. Basically if your not in London of The Home Counties... I think the problem just gets worse the further away you are from those. I thoroughly agree. It mostly ISN'T conscious on the part of the English I know to think that Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish aren't British, BUT that's back to the inculcation of teaching/indoctrination. I partially disagree on the London part, its sheer size and multicultural identity helps it think of itself as British but not necessarily English. But sadly the Home Counties stereotype keeps reappearing. And the whole North/South divide is just baffling to me. I live in London, my mate Geoff, a Sheffield lad, asks me how I like living in France, because down south isn't "proper English".
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Mar 16, 2017 21:53:13 GMT
But then I think it's more than even that, the south of England regards the north of England as irrelevant too. Basically if your not in London of The Home Counties... I think the problem just gets worse the further away you are from those. I think you're right. There is a very good reason why the North of England wants to secseed from the rest of England, or more accurately, from London and Westminster. It's because they are so far removed from the reality of life outside their bubble that they have no concept of our lives or the issues we face. Also, I am very happy to be British but I should be proud of being English too. Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Mar 16, 2017 22:19:10 GMT
A Scottish mate told me tonight that out of the three brothers in his family, one will move South to England if Scotland gets independence because he doesn't trust the SNP, one wants independence and believes in the SNP totally and one doesn't give a toss what happens because he thinks he will be screwed either way.
Says a lot that.
Cheers
Tony
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Mar 16, 2017 22:23:36 GMT
But then I think it's more than even that, the south of England regards the north of England as irrelevant too. Basically if your not in London of The Home Counties... I think the problem just gets worse the further away you are from those. I think you're right. There is a very good reason why the North of England wants to secseed from the rest of England, or more accurately, from London and Westminster. It's because they are so far removed from the reality of life outside their bubble that they have no concept of our lives or the issues we face. Also, I am very happy to be British but I should be proud of being English too. Cheers Tony This is true everywhere you go. In the US too the North doesn't get the South and the Cities don't get the Rural areas & vice versa. I guess focusing on our differences is just human nature.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 16, 2017 23:20:22 GMT
I'm American first, then Tennessean. But I know a lot of folks who would drown if they stood out in the rain. Even some like that round here. Nothing wrong with what you are and profess to be, but how many people from New York or Alaska or Ohio would see you as not a proper American because you're not from their state? That's what I was sayin. Some folks just think themselves better than others, and just bout everyone has some kind of bias or another.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 16, 2017 23:32:09 GMT
I think you're right. There is a very good reason why the North of England wants to secseed from the rest of England, or more accurately, from London and Westminster. It's because they are so far removed from the reality of life outside their bubble that they have no concept of our lives or the issues we face. Also, I am very happy to be British but I should be proud of being English too. Cheers Tony This is true everywhere you go. In the US too the North doesn't get the South and the Cities don't get the Rural areas & vice versa. I guess focusing on our differences is just human nature. True, but there sure are a lot of Yankee's that like comin down here on vacation. But, hey, we like their money. A little story, me and my wife were in an interstate travel center in Chicago, getting a starbucks and usin the bathroom. Anyway, big ole automatic door goin in and out, well we headed out. A man and woman were walkin in, we stuck to the right side, they walked in side by side, talkin, my wife gave way, or the man would have run her over, I didn't. It's funny hearin a rude Yankee cuss. Just sayin. That was quite a few years back. People actually do seem more rude up north, driving, walking, shopping, and unfortunately, ive noticed some of the same comin round here in Wal-Mart and on the roads, maybe it's the generation. There are nice folks everywhere, they just seem to be numbering less and less anymore.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Mar 16, 2017 23:34:58 GMT
This is true everywhere you go. In the US too the North doesn't get the South and the Cities don't get the Rural areas & vice versa. I guess focusing on our differences is just human nature. True, but there sure are a lot of Yankee's that like comin down here on vacation. But, hey, we like their money. A little story, me and my wife were in an interstate travel center in Chicago, getting a starbucks and usin the bathroom. Anyway, big ole automatic door goin in and out, well we headed out. A man and woman were walkin in, we stuck to the right side, they walked in side by side, talkin, my wife gave way, or the man would have run her over, I didn't. It's funny hearin a rude Yankee cuss. Just sayin. That was quite a few years back. People actually do seem more rude up north, driving, walking, shopping, and unfortunately, ive noticed some of the same comin round here in Wal-Mart and on the roads, maybe it's the generation. There are nice folks everywhere, they just seem to be numbering less and less anymore. And plenty of people in the South like vacationing in the North. Travel broadens the mind.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 16, 2017 23:38:05 GMT
Nothing wrong with what you are and profess to be, but how many people from New York or Alaska or Ohio would see you as not a proper American because you're not from their state? That's what I was sayin. Some folks just think themselves better than others, and just bout everyone has some kind of bias or another. Yep. I dunno. I live in the UK in London, it's a great city, vibrant and a bit mad, but when I first arrived the only people who would deign to stop and give me directions when I asked for them was a Jamaican and a Scot! I've pulled this thread slightly off course but only in the sense of examining some cultural responses to the possible dissolution of the UK as it currently is. And these are the things that need addressing. The economics of Scottish independence, the unravelling of the interconnectedness of essential services, all of that, that means nothing. Those are all just things that an independent country will have to deal with itself and just get on with it. So they're not important to the vote whatever the "Still Better Together" gang say. Not really. Oh, they have some import but they're not at the heart of the matter which is very simply: how long will Scotland continue to put up with Westminster? Now, a devil's advocate response to that will be: How long does Westminster have to put up with whining indyref SNP begrudgers? For as long as it takes to get independence. And that's another issue not addressed by those in the south. Independence movements don't go away, take it from an Irishman. They especially don't go away if you treat those asking for it like children and belittle and undermine them. A federal solution might have worked but I honestly think it's too late for that now. This entire thing is going to get a hell of a lot messier before it settles, whatever the outcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 0:23:18 GMT
But then I think it's more than even that, the south of England regards the north of England as irrelevant too. Basically if your not in London of The Home Counties... I think the problem just gets worse the further away you are from those. I think you're right. There is a very good reason why the North of England wants to secseed from the rest of England, or more accurately, from London and Westminster. It's because they are so far removed from the reality of life outside their bubble that they have no concept of our lives or the issues we face. Also, I am very happy to be British but I should be proud of being English too. Cheers Tony Why did the North East of England vote with a resounding no in the devolution referendum of 2004? I've often wondered why one of the most deprived parts of the UK didn't take the chance for at least some autonomy when it was on the table. It wasn't anywhere near the kinds of powers the Scottish parliament has but a NE Assembly would surely have had more chance reflecting the needs and wants of the area more than Westminster. There were plans for regional assemblies in the North, 2 or 3, but the NE rejecting it so strongly took those plans off the table. I do wonder what difference those would have made to the North if they'd been established. I can't imagine things being any worse. I had to work in Bradford and Sunderland for a week training when I was with RSA a few years ago and they were like time capsules. True urban decay even in the city centres. Devolving powers doesn't bring overnight success of course but that first rung of autonomy is needed to make any gains longer term.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 17, 2017 0:28:16 GMT
I think you're right. There is a very good reason why the North of England wants to secseed from the rest of England, or more accurately, from London and Westminster. It's because they are so far removed from the reality of life outside their bubble that they have no concept of our lives or the issues we face. Also, I am very happy to be British but I should be proud of being English too. Cheers Tony Why did the North East of England vote with a resounding no in the devolution referendum of 2004? I've often wondered why one of the most deprived parts of the UK didn't take the chance for at least some autonomy when it was on the table. It wasn't anywhere near the kinds of powers the Scottish parliament has but a NE Assembly would surely have had more chance reflecting the needs and wants of the area more than Westminster. There were plans for regional assemblies in the North, 2 or 3, but the NE rejecting it so strongly took those plans off the table. I do wonder what difference those would have made to the North if they'd been established. I can't imagine things being any worse. I had to work in Bradford and Sunderland for a week training when I was with RSA a few years ago and they were like time capsules. True urban decay even in the city centres. Devolving powers doesn't bring overnight success of course but that first rung of autonomy is needed to make any gains longer term. I wasn't around for those but I had a chat with a Cornish mate who succinctly informed me that THEIR one failed because Cornwall and Devon were being lumped together as one unit and Cornwall wasn't having that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 0:31:41 GMT
Why did the North East of England vote with a resounding no in the devolution referendum of 2004? I've often wondered why one of the most deprived parts of the UK didn't take the chance for at least some autonomy when it was on the table. It wasn't anywhere near the kinds of powers the Scottish parliament has but a NE Assembly would surely have had more chance reflecting the needs and wants of the area more than Westminster. There were plans for regional assemblies in the North, 2 or 3, but the NE rejecting it so strongly took those plans off the table. I do wonder what difference those would have made to the North if they'd been established. I can't imagine things being any worse. I had to work in Bradford and Sunderland for a week training when I was with RSA a few years ago and they were like time capsules. True urban decay even in the city centres. Devolving powers doesn't bring overnight success of course but that first rung of autonomy is needed to make any gains longer term. I wasn't around for those but I had a chat with a Cornish mate who succinctly informed me that THEIR one failed because Cornwall and Devon were being lumped together as one unit and Cornwall wasn't having that! THat's what I've anecdotally heard about the North East one - Mackems didn''t want Geordies getting the assembly based in Newcastle. Not the smartest reason in the world. Think the two cities have more in common than SW1 in London.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Mar 17, 2017 8:40:39 GMT
I wasn't around for those but I had a chat with a Cornish mate who succinctly informed me that THEIR one failed because Cornwall and Devon were being lumped together as one unit and Cornwall wasn't having that! THat's what I've anecdotally heard about the North East one - Mackems didn''t want Geordies getting the assembly based in Newcastle. Not the smartest reason in the world. Think the two cities have more in common than SW1 in London. I think that is a fundamental issue to be honest - when you want devolved government, you want it in your area ... not somewhere else ... especially if there is rivalry. I'm in the North West so can't comment about the NE but it would be like telling people in Burnley, their government is run from Blackburn. Also I think one of the issues was it was John Prescott who wanted the regional assemblies and most people didn't/don't trust his motives (I could tell you stories about what his local police used to ... ah, maybe not on a public forum ). Cheers Tony EDIT: This article takes a good look at Regional Assemblies - the extract below comes close to my view on the subject at the time, which is why I may not have voted for it (if I had been given the chance)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 14:48:34 GMT
That's just nuts to me. I certainly didn't rally against devolution because Edinburgh was getting the Parliament and not Glasgow. Surely those Blackburn/Burnley people could see they're both much more similiar than either are with London. I can see the "more politicians" side, but if they've got more power to help the local area can't see it's a bad thing - you're taking those powers way from Westminister who aren't helping you at all. Very odd. I wonder too if, being held in 2004, people wanted to give Labour a black eye over Iraq so voted it down. Who knows for sure?
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Mar 17, 2017 16:13:21 GMT
That's just nuts to me. I certainly didn't rally against devolution because Edinburgh was getting the Parliament and not Glasgow. Surely those Blackburn/Burnley people could see they're both much more similiar than either are with London. I can see the "more politicians" side, but if they've got more power to help the local area can't see it's a bad thing - you're taking those powers way from Westminister who aren't helping you at all. Very odd. I wonder too if, being held in 2004, people wanted to give Labour a black eye over Iraq so voted it down. Who knows for sure? Personally, I agree with you about the Burnley/Blackburn people etc., but just saying you can't underestimate the hatred some rivalries engender (even at local level). For me it was definitely a mistrust of Labour/John Prescott and their reasons for championing it. Fortunately (or not), I never got the chance to vote on it because the North East give them a bloody nose and they took their ball in. Cheers Tony
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 17:37:48 GMT
An illustration of what I said on page one about a lot of English media not having anything beyond the most basic knowledge to talk about the situation with authority - Ian Collins on LBC said this afternoon (unchallenged) that Nicola Sturgeon will struggle massively to get Holyrood to back the motion for a referendum as the SNP don't have an overall majority. He neglected to mention, or more likely didn't know and couldn't be bothered to check, that the Greens are and always have been pro-Indy and will vote with the SNP to ensure it passes safely. Similarly Jo Coburn on The Daily Politics said this week that the SNP were the only pro-Independence party in Holyrood - despite the Greens having more seats than the Lib Dems. These are outlets a lot of non-Scots get their news from. Hardly a glowing endorsement for journalistic standards and it feeds into people believing things that just aren't true.
So much of the UK-wide coverage is painted in only the broadest strokes because of this dangerous combination of lack of knowledge and determination to cover the story anyway. God forbid you should feel compelled to know just the fundamentals about a subject before writing and broadcasting about it.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 18, 2017 21:20:56 GMT
An illustration of what I said on page one about a lot of English media not having anything beyond the most basic knowledge to talk about the situation with authority - Ian Collins on LBC said this afternoon (unchallenged) that Nicola Sturgeon will struggle massively to get Holyrood to back the motion for a referendum as the SNP don't have an overall majority. He neglected to mention, or more likely didn't know and couldn't be bothered to check, that the Greens are and always have been pro-Indy and will vote with the SNP to ensure it passes safely. Similarly Jo Coburn on The Daily Politics said this week that the SNP were the only pro-Independence party in Holyrood - despite the Greens having more seats than the Lib Dems. These are outlets a lot of non-Scots get their news from. Hardly a glowing endorsement for journalistic standards and it feeds into people believing things that just aren't true. So much of the UK-wide coverage is painted in only the broadest strokes because of this dangerous combination of lack of knowledge and determination to cover the story anyway. God forbid you should feel compelled to know just the fundamentals about a subject before writing and broadcasting about it. That's because very simply England has no understanding of what an independence movement really is (and no, Brexit wasn't an independence vote, if that was your reason for voting you were misled) again I think it is the elision of Britain with England. So any narrative that opposes that must ergo be invalid. We're down to simple ignoring the facts to fit the belief, which is always nonsense. A second indyref vote could still fail, but wouldn't that failure be more palatable for both sides if it was done without the lies and misrepresentation? A bitter pill for the SNP still though but...
|
|