Scotland, Wales, England = Britain

(*What do y'all think of this sentiment with regards to three countries that comprise "Britain"?)



Scotland, Wales, England = Britain.

Oct
15
2012

Over the last twenty years the drive to melt nations down into the European Union superstate has been assisted by the fostering of economic zones, or regions in Europe. Petty nationalism and a delusional sense of economic significance has grown louder, coupled with the obvious failure of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems to respond to the needs of people. Just as workers oppose the break up of collective bargaining through regional pay, so they should now take the opportunity to more loudly assert a new unity in Britain. We are one economy, one working class, one nation. A new act of union to unite our people against the parasites from overseas who run the economy and determine our laws should be developed, not a retreat into mindless petty nationalism. We are one nation not three.

http://www.theworker.org.uk/blog/

Though I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind such a proposal, it nevertheless strikes me as a rather superfluous way to go about developing a sense of international working class solidarity. The simple fact of the matter is that national identity is relative. Individuals in the Isles will invariably identify themselves as 'British', 'English', 'Welsh', and 'Scottish'. Therefore, acknowledging only one specific expression of national identity as 'legitimate' is something that will undoubtedly place an unnecessary barrier between this movement and a robust portion of the workers it purports to represent.

One would hope that a movement seriously committed to international socialist revolution would immediately adopt a position on the national question that would fall within the rubric of (what this forum defines as) left-wing nationalism. Anything short of that will likely continue to alienate a great deal of workers.

I'm with Admin here, hell, if you want to push it, you could say you forgot Cornwall and the North-South divide. That said, Scottish independence is probably the best thing for Scotland.

Our Celtic neighbours should have the chance to decide if they wish to be in the Union just like the English should be able to as well.

I have a lot of time for the Celtic nations we have a long shared history where our Folk have intermixed and at times in our history been that one Folk (mainly in times of war) but I wish the best for them either way ,Why some people in the British Isles see the need to get so sectarian about the whole thing is above me.

I come from a Unionist background in Ulster but have come to totally reject the whole Union. Wales with its resources should have been one of the richest countries in Europe, instead its one of the poorest. After Partition Northern Ireland was way ahead of the Irish Free State but now they have a far superior standard of living; Great British Unionists will point to the "Troubles" but the fact is that Westminster once it had the situation contained allowed them to drag on and on, deliberately inflaming things at times, seeking neither a military or political solution basically using Ulster as a training ground for their troops in urban and guerrilla warfare. The Troubles were caused primarily by a reactionary upper class Anglo-"Irish" leadership of the UUP and not by proletarian or small farming Ulster Scots or Irish Gaels but thats another story. The Union suits the south-east of England and no one else. Im very symapthetic to the Merican independence movement.

TheocWulf wrote:Our Celtic neighbours should have the chance to decide if they wish to be in the Union just like the English should be able to as well.

I have a lot of time for the Celtic nations we have a long shared history where our Folk have intermixed and at times in our history been that one Folk (mainly in times of war) but I wish the best for them either way ,Why some people in the British Isles see the need to get so sectarian about the whole thing is above me.

The problem is that a lot of people in the Celtic nations see the English as the enemy not understanding that the English are not the enemy; the Norman overlords are though, as they are the enemy of the English. Its very interesting that the English Revolution was seen in very national terms as Anglo-Saxons regaining their freedoms from the Normans so many hundreds of years of the battle of Hastings. Very interesting to is that most people at Eton can trace their blood straight back to the Norman invaders with very little admixture of genuinely English blood.

Paradosis wrote:

TheocWulf wrote:Our Celtic neighbours should have the chance to decide if they wish to be in the Union just like the English should be able to as well.

I have a lot of time for the Celtic nations we have a long shared history where our Folk have intermixed and at times in our history been that one Folk (mainly in times of war) but I wish the best for them either way ,Why some people in the British Isles see the need to get so sectarian about the whole thing is above me.

The problem is that a lot of people in the Celtic nations see the English as the enemy not understanding that the English are not the enemy; the Norman overlords are though, as they are the enemy of the English. Its very interesting that the English Revolution was seen in very national terms as Anglo-Saxons regaining their freedoms from the Normans so many hundreds of years of the battle of Hastings. Very interesting to is that most people at Eton can trace their blood straight back to the Norman invaders with very little admixture of genuinely English blood.

Your correct on both accounts there,and I'd recommend some of Christopher Hills works in the English Revolution.Im not sure how much truth there is in the idea of this pre Norman paradise but no doubt the average Englishmen was better of under his Anglo saxon landowner than his Norman one,just as the Celtic nations were better off with out the Normans.

I find the whole idea of the Union very Norman to be honest,I won't deny the different cultures of our island enjoyed kicking the shit out of each other but I don't see why the Norman occupation of Wales and Cornwall post conquest,followed by Norman mercenaries replacing the traditional Scottish aristocracy,Should be considered by many to be the start of our history and William the Bastard being the first English/British king.

No I dont think it was perfect in Anglo-Saxon times; far from it and Im not a utopian anyway who believes you will ever have perfection in this world- that said it was a lot more just. Full blown feudalism was didnt arrive until the Normans came- very interesting also is that we learnt nothing about the "harrowing of the north" in school where William the Bastard slaughtered a quarter of the population of the north of England. So much of the history of the British Isles is left out or distorted. I have notes written down on social organization in Anglo-Saxon times- must see if I can dig them out.

Paradosis wrote:I come from a Unionist background in Ulster but have come to totally reject the whole Union. Wales with its resources should have been one of the richest countries in Europe, instead its one of the poorest. After Partition Northern Ireland was way ahead of the Irish Free State but now they have a far superior standard of living; Great British Unionists will point to the "Troubles" but the fact is that Westminster once it had the situation contained allowed them to drag on and on, deliberately inflaming things at times, seeking neither a military or political solution basically using Ulster as a training ground for their troops in urban and guerrilla warfare. The Troubles were caused primarily by a reactionary upper class Anglo-"Irish" leadership of the UUP and not by proletarian or small farming Ulster Scots or Irish Gaels but thats another story. The Union suits the south-east of England and no one else. Im very symapthetic to the Merican independence movement.

Interesting,my work employes people from all over the union and I've never heard an Ulster man or woman express this kind of opinion and may see the union as well as there Protestant religion as the character of Northern Ireland.Id be interested how you came to this conclusion as my limited understanding of the situation is that the planters of Ulster are fairly new in the grand scheme of English and Scottish planters in the rest of Ireland,However Ulster had no Anglo Irish aristocracy to stop both communities falling out like in the rest of Ireland and the distinction between Old English and new English emerging around the time of Revolution across the Irish Sea.

Despite the violence in Ulster at the time of the English Civil war if the new Government in England wasn't run by a bunch of Petit Bourgeois Presburtarians we may have never seen the generations of violence known as the "Troubles".Shame the Levellers never got what they wanted.

Like you I believe the union only suits Westminster,and although I sympathise with movements who wish to emulate the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy I think a more realistic option for England would be regional parliaments based on the already recognised regions NE,SW ect ect.

Paradosis wrote:No I dont think it was perfect in Anglo-Saxon times; far from it and Im not a utopian anyway who believes you will ever have perfection in this world- that said it was a lot more just. Full blown feudalism was didnt arrive until the Normans came- very interesting also is that we learnt nothing about the "harrowing of the north" in school where William the Bastard slaughtered a quarter of the population of the north of England. So much of the history of the British Isles is left out or distorted. I have notes written down on social organization in Anglo-Saxon times- must see if I can dig them out.

Very True he was a ruthless fucker and that's why our ancestors kept fighting well into the 1080s.The social structure changed over time.In Heathen times a free man could gather with other freemen to demand the king to step down,The thing to bear in mind here though is that in Heathen times the kingdoms we smaller.In Christian times especially post Alfred the Great a Witan of landowners from each part of the country would "Advise" the King and dispose as they saw fit with each wanting to further himself and his region or even become king themselves.

[quote="TheocWulf"]

Paradosis wrote:

Interesting,my work employes people from all over the union and I've never heard an Ulster man or woman express this kind of opinion and may see the union as well as there Protestant religion as the character of Northern Ireland.Id be interested how you came to this conclusion as my limited understanding of the situation is that the planters of Ulster are fairly new in the grand scheme of English and Scottish planters in the rest of Ireland,However Ulster had no Anglo Irish aristocracy to stop both communities falling out like in the rest of Ireland and the distinction between Old English and new English emerging around the time of Revolution across the Irish Sea.

Most the Ulster Scots were not actually part of the Plantations which only allowed in Anglicans (at least officially) and instead where refugees fleeing the border wars. Adams is hardly an Irish Gaelic name while O'Neil is; a lot of Unionists have Irish names while a lot of Republicans have English or Scotch ones. A large proportion of Protestant Belfast actually spoke Irish at the beginning of the last century. Ulster wasnt dominated by the Anglo-Irish in the same way that the rest of Ireland thats true however the Anglo-Irish held political and a lot of economic power- there were no vast estates of peasant farmers. Originally the Orange Order didnt allow in "dissenters" (non-Anglican Protestants) originally and it was Ulster Scots who formed the backbone of the United Irishmen rebellion in the 1790s. Things are a lot more complex than most Unionists will admit.

The Anglo-Irish did use the sectarian card to insure their power in Northern Ireland- which is why an outsider like Ian Paisley in order to try and dislodge them used the tactic of out doing them on that. I dont think Paisley was sectarian at heart at all and when he had achieved what he set out to (destroy the UUP) he was fine working Catholics.

Personally I favour either an Independent Northern Ireland, devolution max within a united Ireland maybe taking in Donegal which culturally has a lot more in common with us than it does with the rest of ROI or joint sovereignty between the ROI and Scotland. Ulster is different from the rest of Ireland despite what Republicans might say, and they have more in common with us than they do with anybody else, if they could realize that and Protestants stopped being idiots wrapping themselves in the Union Jack than we could get somewhere.

Nobody can really stand in the way of self determination, be it in Wales, Scotland, England or Cornwall