Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  

Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.
  

Regional Firms

Thinking of moving out of the City? Regional Inside Info gives you the lowdown on firms in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:39
"The term "Little Englander" was originally a right-wing term of abuse for anti-imperialist Liberals."

True, but Gladstone (who was the ultimate Little Englander) was basically a Tory by today's standards.
SumoKing
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:41
Report as offensive
it's because the English can't blame themselves for the shitt state of their public services and the poor value for money they get in the rather large wedge of tax they pay and the exorbitant price of houses

so they need to blame, forrins, Europe, Scots etc

ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:41
Report as offensive
Not you. Anyone else?
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:42
Report as offensive
SumoKing
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:41 Report as offensive Report Offensive
it's because the English can't blame themselves for the shitt state of their public services and the poor value for money they get in the rather large wedge of tax they pay and the exorbitant price of houses

so they need to blame, forrins, Europe, Scots etc


There's the instinct to blame forrins, but why are Scots included in this? The same people 100 years ago would have been British imperialists who would have seen Jock Scotsman as their friend and brother.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:42
Report as offensive
"The grandparents and great-grandparents of these people would have been doggedly obsessed with the British Empire"


Er, no. My great-grandparents were mostly staunch Liberals. One set kept a portrait of Gladstone in the hallway. And all my grandparents, who were Tory, were pretty tuglite about Scotland.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:44
Report as offensive
The only people in England who care about the Union are the Labour Party, for purely cynical electoral reasons, and a few Blimpish Tories. Even in Scotland, nearly 50% don't want it. It's all over.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:44
Report as offensive
Can you stop posting on this thread please, 3-ducks?
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:47
Report as offensive
No, because I'm the only person interested enough in 19th politics to converse with you. Why not address my points instead of dishing out personal abuse?
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 10:53
Report as offensive
What's your issue with Dux's contribution, RP?
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:01
Report as offensive
I'm not going to bandy words with a cretin.

What's your explanation, Hanners?
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:04
Report as offensive
heh, wot a tool
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:07
Report as offensive
I know, but he does know a bit about this stuff and might be able to contribute.
SumoKing
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:08
Report as offensive
I guess Reggie, because with the world being relatively peaceful (not a lot of invasions going on recently), with famine essentially beaten and disease on the rocks there is not the same kind of need to band together in the face of imperial aggression like there was as early as 60 years ago

you'd be nuts to i.e. invade i.e. Libya for oil these days because it's much much cheaper to just buy it on the world market

nobody needs to be a big empire anymore so the pressure of fear is lessened and the optimism of free trade has largely replaced that. I suspect that the current panic, largely driven by olds who are terrified of the modern world and that have some attachment to old fashion imperialist gunboat diplomacy will spike and fizzle (may already have actually)
BST
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:14
Report as offensive
This is I think originally attributable to the Scottish push for independence Reg.

The consequence of that though, especially given the perception England heavily subsidises Scotland economically is the more they push for independence, the more a lot of people in England, mainly but not just on the right, would rather they just get on with it and leave.

It would be interesting to see a poll of English people now on whether they want Scotland to leave the UK. I would think that is still a minority view, but suspect it might now be no more than say 60/40 wanting them to stay.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:15
Report as offensive
"might now be no more than say 60/40 wanting them to stay"

Probably about right, but I bet you about 75% don't care enough either way to express a view.
BST
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:17
Report as offensive
For sure Dux, most of us on here are vastly more politically engaged/interested than most people - most people have very limited interest certainly on a day to day basis on this sort of thing agreed.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:19
Report as offensive
SumoKing
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:08 Report as offensive Report Offensive
I guess Reggie, because with the world being relatively peaceful (not a lot of invasions going on recently), with famine essentially beaten and disease on the rocks there is not the same kind of need to band together in the face of imperial aggression like there was as early as 60 years ago

you'd be nuts to i.e. invade i.e. Libya for oil these days because it's much much cheaper to just buy it on the world market

nobody needs to be a big empire anymore so the pressure of fear is lessened and the optimism of free trade has largely replaced that. I suspect that the current panic, largely driven by olds who are terrified of the modern world and that have some attachment to old fashion imperialist gunboat diplomacy will spike and fizzle (may already have actually)


Yes, I'd agree with most of this. And there isn't the Cold War as an external threat either.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:21
Report as offensive
GMT
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:14 Report as offensive Report Offensive
This is I think originally attributable to the Scottish push for independence Reg.

The consequence of that though, especially given the perception England heavily subsidises Scotland economically is the more they push for independence, the more a lot of people in England, mainly but not just on the right, would rather they just get on with it and leave.

It would be interesting to see a poll of English people now on whether they want Scotland to leave the UK. I would think that is still a minority view, but suspect it might now be no more than say 60/40 wanting them to stay.


I'd distinguish between saying "if you want to leave, then leave" and English nationalists actively giving their allegiance to (their own idea of) England as opposed to Scotland. I don't think the financial issue explains it.
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:22
Report as offensive
wot GMT sed.

If asked my nationality I will reply 'English'.
bookem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:23
Report as offensive
Reg - the sort of little England attitude you highlight has never been in favour of a small state. Hence the irreconcilable division between the libertarian Carswell wing of UKIP and the nativists.

They are all in favour of state provided goods - just as long as the "right" people are at the front of the queue. In other words they are disgusting twice over. If they were Scottish they'd be SNP cultists.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:24
Report as offensive
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:22 Report as offensive Report Offensive
wot GMT sed.

If asked my nationality I will reply 'English'.


Yes but why? That was my question.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
bookem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:23 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Reg - the sort of little England attitude you highlight has never been in favour of a small state. Hence the irreconcilable division between the libertarian Carswell wing of UKIP and the nativists.

They are all in favour of state provided goods - just as long as the "right" people are at the front of the queue. In other words they are disgusting twice over. If they were Scottish they'd be SNP cultists.


Not entirely, bookers. I know what you mean - there's the guy who votes UKIP because he doesn't like seeing Syrians getting council flats ahead of his kids. But if you think that rightist English nats would share, say, Alex Salmond's views on taxes and the NHS then I think that you're mistaken.
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
Alternatively

"There is empirical evidence that people on the nationalist right wing in Scotland have a strong tendency to identify as "Scottish" rather than "British":

Little Scotlanders ... or does that misrepresent the SNP ?

PS you could not go anywhere in the former British Empire / colonies without bumping into expat Scots. Burns Night, Scots Country Dancing clubs, Kilts, Bagpipes, the whole lot.

Stong national identity, obviously, and nobody seems to criticise the Scots for this. Why is this inherently despised by the left as racism in people who identify as having Engish heritage?

3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
Of course, OGR, most people would, as indeed they would have a hundred years ago, but I suppose that's largely because in those days "English" and "British" were synonymous for many people.

I suppose the answer is that, with the decline of the British Empire, people see no *point* in a Union. There's a cultural, linguistic and ethnic affinity between the two countries, but so there is with Australia.
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
Reggie, answering your question:

There is empirical evidence that people on the nationalist right wing in this country have a strong tendency to identify as "English" rather than "British" - correct. I think that's accurate.

I certainly see myself as more British than English, being both of immigrant stock and having family in every nation within the UK. But the nationalist right wing does indeed see "English" as closer to being synonymous with "white".

My pride in Britain is for what it has done for the world and for our values. I think, however, nationalist right wingers are fixated on race alone.
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:28
Report as offensive
bookem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:23 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Reg - the sort of little England attitude you highlight has never been in favour of a small state. Hence the irreconcilable division between the libertarian Carswell wing of UKIP and the nativists.

They are all in favour of state provided goods - just as long as the "right" people are at the front of the queue. In other words they are disgusting twice over. If they were Scottish they'd be SNP cultists.

--

bookem nails it.
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:29
Report as offensive


the UK is a political construct made up of 4 nations. England is mine.Born, bred, inhabited.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:29
Report as offensive
What a shame the great intellectual philosopher Reg won't deign to speak to proles like me. I'd be interested to hear his (or anyone else's) opinion on my post at 10.39.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:34
Report as offensive
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Alternatively

"There is empirical evidence that people on the nationalist right wing in Scotland have a strong tendency to identify as "Scottish" rather than "British":

Little Scotlanders ... or does that misrepresent the SNP ?

PS you could not go anywhere in the former British Empire / colonies without bumping into expat Scots. Burns Night, Scots Country Dancing clubs, Kilts, Bagpipes, the whole lot.

Stong national identity, obviously, and nobody seems to criticise the Scots for this. Why is this inherently despised by the left as racism in people who identify as having Engish heritage?


What you say about Scots and the Empire is exactly my point. And I'm not talking about people taking a general pride in their national identity, I'm talking about the growth of political nationalism in England which, to some extent, defines itself to exclude the Scots (and Welsh and Northern Irish).
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:37
Report as offensive
282 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Reggie, answering your question:

There is empirical evidence that people on the nationalist right wing in this country have a strong tendency to identify as "English" rather than "British" - correct. I think that's accurate.

I certainly see myself as more British than English, being both of immigrant stock and having family in every nation within the UK. But the nationalist right wing does indeed see "English" as closer to being synonymous with "white".

My pride in Britain is for what it has done for the world and for our values. I think, however, nationalist right wingers are fixated on race alone.


Heh. Even I don't see it as being purely about race, although I do think that "English" is closer to being a codeword for white than "British". Is it just me, or have you noticed that speicifcally English nationalism seems to be rising within your party of late?
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:38
Report as offensive
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:29 Report as offensive Report Offensive


the UK is a political construct made up of 4 nations. England is mine.Born, bred, inhabited.


That's not really an answer. What is it about "British", as opposed to "English", that turns you off?
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:41
Report as offensive
The original "Little Englanders" were the very keenest proponents of Free Trade. They opposed big government, tariffs, punitive taxation, and foreign interventionism (notably the Boer war). Those people still exist and make up a very considerable portion of England's (largely non-political) population. They just don't seem to have any representation in Parliament or among the intellectual elite.


bookem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:23
Reg - the sort of little England attitude you highlight has never been in favour of a small state.
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:42
Report as offensive
it doesn't turn me off and I didn't say it did. As I explained, Britain/ uk is a political entity or geographical description, not a nation. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are nations.
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:42
Report as offensive
"Is it just me, or have you noticed that specifically English nationalism seems to be rising within your party of late?"

--

I have honestly not noticed that, if anything the Brexit debate has been about the opposite. What I certainly have noticed is an anti-Scot sentiment, specifically brought about by the rise in Scotch nationalism, but it is not even nearly matched by any similar feeling towards Wales or Northern Ireland.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:45
Report as offensive
Basically, this.

The rest is just bullshit and hot air.


old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:42
Britain/ uk is a political entity or geographical description, not a nation. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are nations.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:46
Report as offensive
What a lot of pompous rubbish.

Sorry Hanners, old chap, but really! You've been hanging out with the Yanks too much.


282 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:27
My pride in Britain is for what it has done for the world and for our values.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:47
Report as offensive
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:42 Report as offensive Report Offensive
it doesn't turn me off and I didn't say it did. As I explained, Britain/ uk is a political entity or geographical description, not a nation. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are nations.


But all of these things are constructed entities at the end of the day, so why do you perceive England, specifically, to be the focus of your identity? As I've kept saying, I would have thought that the lingering imperial dream would, if anything, have led a man of your professed views to identify as British.
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:48
Report as offensive
Sorry to disappoint, Dux.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:49
Report as offensive
OGR is many things, but he doesn't strike me as a Blimpish imperialist.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:49
Report as offensive
282 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 11:42 Report as offensive Report Offensive
"Is it just me, or have you noticed that specifically English nationalism seems to be rising within your party of late?"

--

I have honestly not noticed that, if anything the Brexit debate has been about the opposite. What I certainly have noticed is an anti-Scot sentiment, specifically brought about by the rise in Scotch nationalism, but it is not even nearly matched by any similar feeling towards Wales or Northern Ireland.


Ok. That's interesting. Thanks.
bananaman returns
Posted - 17 March 2017 12:02
Report as offensive
"the UK is a political construct made up of 4 nations".

Given that you are applying the political construct argument to a merger of sovereign states generations ago, presumably you should be announcing yourself as a citizen of one of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms that preceded England?

My personal experience is that those who badge themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh where it is irrelevant to the context (e.g. when not talking about international sport being played between home nations) tend to believe the label alone confers some enhanced status on them rather than being purely descriptive, and use the other sub-UK monikers as a pejorative term (e.g. you Scottish twat). In terms of the "English", this chimes with Daily Mail types who seem to believe that being English should protect you from economic competition and justify prejudice against those they perceive as being non-English, and the label allows them to exclude those of the wrong colour or economic situation that have not "earned" the "English" badge since it is not an internationally recognised label of nationality - the passport says "British".

Chambers
Posted - 17 March 2017 12:05
Report as offensive
What GMT said, I have limited interest in all of this, apart from thinking that the Scots Nats politicians are being are a bit dim. They interviewed people on the street in Edinburgh on TV this morning and the general reaction to the prospect of another referendum was lukewarm at best.

They were all on their way to work doing useful things no doubt. Politicians on the other hand...
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 12:07
Report as offensive
Fcking Bananamen coming over here, taking our jobs and our women.

Fck off back to Acacia Road.
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 12:45
Report as offensive
Mercia for me

the others can fvck right Offa
Discworld_Librarian
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:10
Report as offensive
Anthony Barnett has written some really good stuff which I think at least touches on the question, Reggie. Have you read his series on OpenDemocracy ("Blimey! It could be Brexit!")?

The idea frames English nationalism as a reaction to the English not having their own Parliament, and / or there not being a written constitution to formally set out what the role of England is in relation to the other parts of the UK. It's not quite jealousy, exactly, but there is a perception that Scotland (in particular) has a parliament that speaks for its people. English people don't, because Westminster has to at least pay lip service to being the seat of representation for the whole UK. So English people perceive themselves doing work for / paying taxes / getting policies that are all compromises with the Celtic nations. In contrast, the Scots get policies that fit Scotland, at least in areas which are devolved.

Historically this may not have mattered as much when the country had the Empire as an outward-looking project to focus on.

Discworld_Librarian
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:13
Report as offensive
Further to my 14:10:

Anecdotally: I go to Scotland a lot (I have in-laws there, and I used to work there). When discussing politics, I always ask people if they feel like they have a government that speaks for them. Even if they don't support the SNP, and have no truck with independence, they very nearly always say yes. How many English people would say the same?
Discworld_Librarian
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:21
Report as offensive
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnett/it-s-england-s-brexit
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:22
Report as offensive
Anthony Barnett has written some really good stuff which I think at least touches on the question, Reggie. Have you read his series on OpenDemocracy ("Blimey! It could be Brexit!")?

No, I haven't. Thanks for the recommendation.
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:31
Report as offensive
Without the Scottish vote, and ignoring the Bliar phenomenon, the Labour Party would have not won an election after 1945

People now realise this, that Scotlands psychological need to vote Labour / SNP is inimicable to English interests and foists a lot of tiresome social engineers on the country

The fact that there is only one conservative MP in Scotland shows that the mindset of the two countries is just too different and where the animus originates
bananaman returns
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:38
Report as offensive
"and ignoring the Bliar phenomenon"

Must try this in court.

"Ignoring the bloody knife, the confessional note reading "I killed the bastard and I am glad I did so, the video tape recording of the entire murder clearly showing the defendant's face, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:48
Report as offensive
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:31 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Without the Scottish vote, and ignoring the Bliar phenomenon, the Labour Party would have not won an election after 1945


This is factually untrue. I can't be bothered to explain why, unless a non-troll poster is interested.
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:49
Report as offensive
Once they booted Bliar out, the Labour Party collapsed
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:54
Report as offensive
Actually I was referring to the results of the 1950 and 1966 general elections, which would have returned Labour governments without Scotland, but you make a good point in any event. British politics just hasn't been the same since the Labour Party collapsed in June 2007.
bookem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:11
Report as offensive
"British politics just hasn't been the same since the Labour Party collapsed in June 2007."


The month I left my job in Whitehall. Coincidence? We may never know.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:13
Report as offensive
R u admitting to being Tony B.lair?

Or maybe John Prescott?
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:15
Report as offensive
still makes me laugh.

3 General Election victories, by any account one of the most electorally successful Prime Ministers in British history, and yet unable to show his face at his own party conference due to the security risk and embarrassment it would engender.

Maybe one day, when the Corbyn nightmare has ended and the party has grown up, he'll be able to appear again, but for now it's just such an off spectacle.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:17
Report as offensive
That's not true, Even allowing for a change in voting patterns with Scotland out of the picture (entirely speculative, and impossible to predict accurately), Wilson would have won in 1964.

Labour got 274 seats in England & Wales, and the Conservatives 262. That alone would have been enough for an overall majority of 1, but in practice they could probably have relied on Liberal votes if push came to shove.

I haven't done the calculations for other years.


tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 14:31
Without the Scottish vote, and ignoring the Bliar phenomenon, the Labour Party would have not won an election after 1945
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:17
Report as offensive
It would have affected the seminal years of 1964 ( the start of the socialist terror) and 2010, where the smack of firm government, to start rectifying the Labour Party mess, was urgently needed
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:19
Report as offensive
Tbf two of those election victories were before the Iraq adventure fully revealed the extent of his arrogance and poor judgement. And the third one was won on just over a third of the vote.

It also helped that the Conservative and Unionist Party decided not to contest the 2001 general election.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:20
Report as offensive
For the first time ever, I stand corrected by 3-ducks. I should have said 1964 and not 1966 (or rather, 1964 and also 1966 as WIlson would have won both times).
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:20
Report as offensive
"It would have affected the seminal years of 1964"

No it wouldn't. See the figures above.
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:20
Report as offensive
All fair points, Reggie, nevertheless I am right.
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:21
Report as offensive
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:29
Report as offensive
Oh, so 3-ducks was wrong about 1964. I ought to have known, really.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:30
Report as offensive
I can't see how those figures for 1964 are right.
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:32
Report as offensive
Just apologise 3 Dux for wasting my time
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:34
Report as offensive
I think we've satisfactorily made the point that there would have been a Labour government in the 1960s without Scotland. let's not quibble about 1964.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:37
Report as offensive
I stand corrected.

In England & Wales, the Conservatives got 268; Labour 274; Liberals 5.

Without Scottish seats, there would have been 559 seats, so a theoretical majority of 280 would be required (not taking into account the Speaker and his deputies).

In practice I'm probably still right though. Wilson and Grimond would have done a pact and achieved a *working* majority.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:39
Report as offensive
Having said that, the Tories could have won too, by doing a deal with the Ulster Unionists. Very difficult to say.

(For these purposes, I've included the old "National Liberals" as de facto Tories).
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:40
Report as offensive
Disagree. Broke the dam
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:44
Report as offensive
This is ridiculous. If England had been a discrete state in the C20, it would just have evolved a different party system. It would still have had a left-wing party, and that party would still have won a significant number of elections. You can't just take Scotland off retrospectively and assume that everything else would have been the same.
Mr Scarawanga
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:49
Report as offensive
I wonder Reg if you've thought of the impact of sport on this. Since 66 being a footy fan has become more and more ubiquitous and so perhaps has thinking of yourself as english. Factor in 1991 and 90s laddism, england's rugby revival in the early 90s 1996, three lions etc and it has to have had an impact.

For what it's worth I think it depends on the way the question is phrased. Ask me what nationality I am and I will probably say british because i know that's what's in my pssport. Ask me where I'm from and I'll say england.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:51
Report as offensive
Is footy really more of a thing since 1966? International matches attracted huge support before WW1 even, when it was much more of a classless sport even than now.
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:51
Report as offensive
Everything would have been just fine

England is a conservative country, barring a few Celtic enclaves
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:52
Report as offensive
ING-ER-LUND!!!
old git roundabout
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:02
Report as offensive
in 1966 there was hardly a St George Cross to be seen - only Union Jacks. This had been totally reversed by Euro 96.

Reason? Devolution and Scots Nationalism.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:03
Report as offensive
tarquin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:51 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Everything would have been just fine

England is a conservative country, barring a few Celtic enclaves


And a few other unpatriotic enclaves, like Stamford Hill, Golders Green, Gateshead and Childwall.
Mr Scarawanga
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:05
Report as offensive
Sorry 1991 should have of course been 1990
Used Psychology
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:10
Report as offensive
Bump
200 Sleeps To Christmas
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:26
Report as offensive
(_I_) @ I\I g O
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:49 Report as offensive Report Offensive

For what it's worth I think it depends on the way the question is phrased. Ask me what nationality I am and I will probably say british because i know that's what's in my pssport. Ask me where I'm from and I'll say england.

--

This is also quite true.
Mr Scarawanga
Posted - 17 March 2017 16:39
Report as offensive
How do u know i might be lying my arse off

Pyss off with your new facts
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 17 March 2017 17:33
Report as offensive
ReggiePerrin
Posted - 17 March 2017 15:44
Report as offensive

If England had been a discrete state in the C20, it would just have evolved a different party system. It would still have had a left-wing party, and that party would still have won a significant number of elections. You can't just take Scotland off retrospectively and assume that everything else would have been the same.


But you can, apparently, know what would have happened electorally "If England had been a discrete state in the C20". Frappez une lumiere, guv, you lawyers ain't half clever bleeders.
3-ducks
Posted - 17 March 2017 21:54
Report as offensive
Fortunately Soto is able to express things in the rarefied and pompous language of the Oxbridge academic, thus pwning Reggie at his own game and leaving the rest of us mere mortals to bathe in vicarious glory.