Some of those voting blocs are noteworthy though, the Balkans in particular. Yugoslavia disintegrated into a bloody Civil War complete with atrocities carried out by all sides and yet, just a handful of years later, their respective populations are best friends.

There is a lesson here.

But first, a little of my own background.

I joined the Campaign for an English Parliament as a Unionist. I was appalled at the anti-English bigotry of the Devolution Settlement foisted upon us by “New” Labour with the support of the so-called “Liberal Democrats” – the latter being a party of which I was a founder-member and which I ended up leaving in disgust. I believed unbalanced Devolution would wreck the Union. Fifteen years later I think it has.

Although the CEP was founded to Campaign for a devolved English Parliament standing alongside the other devolved Parliaments, as time went by it became clear to increasing numbers of our members that the Union was becoming actively hostile to England. As a result, the CEP found itself under pressure to accommodate both those who had joined to defend England within a continuing Union and those for whom the Union was now a poisonous irrelevance. It was wording suggested by me that the CEP still use to tie these strands together: “An English Parliament within the Union – or an English Parliament without the Union”, i.e. still Unionist but not at the expense of England.

As a Unionist, I naturally tried to reach out to fellow Unionists. I wanted to make them realise just how much damage the unbalanced Devolution Settlement was doing to a principle that in theory we both shared and why a devolved English Parliament was needed to counter this. The usual response to these appeals was to be rebuffed and dismissed as an “AngloNat”.

To give an example, I wrote this, the very first article published on the Open Unionism website:

Older generations have an instinctive Unionism. It’s just part of the furniture, something grown up with and that is taken for granted. There is a comfortable complacency that this will always be so, that the world will change but that these changes will be superficial. For example, my generation grew up with comics full of stories of the Second World War, with heroes such as ‘Union Jack Jackson’ – all of which was part of a shared culture throughout the UK.

But what of today’s youth?

At the insistence of the nationalist parties, children growing up in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are taught the history of their respective countries. Only children in England are taught ‘British’ history, but even here there is an emphasis on slavery and the like, along with the suggestion that the ‘British’ Empire is something to be ashamed of.

Tomorrow’s adult is today’s child.

The comfortable complacent response to the massive rise in tuition fees is to assume that because students have not (yet) specifically highlighted the injustice done to those from England that this is a minor issue that can be safely ignored.

This misses the rather fundamental point that it isn’t the current cohort of students who are affected by this change. The ones who should be being asked are the 16 and 17 year olds who will be the first to face the fees. And if the pupils in my older children’s school are any guide, they are spitting blood.

Today’s children have grown up with nationalist rhetoric that has emphasised the differences between the nations that comprise the UK, and now they are seeing that difference in stark relief.

They hear politicians mouthing platitudes such as ‘We are all in this together’ – and then see that there is plenty of money available for free tuition if you’re Scottish, and subsidies available if you are Welsh or Northern Irish. But nothing if you are English – and also that there is nobody to fight their corner.

Is it any surprise that Polls show a marked rise in a specifically English identity and that this rise is most noticeable amongst the young?

I have no doubt that many readers will consider it arrogant in the extreme if I suggest that the Union of the British nations will not survive if the English decide they have had enough. But then, from my point of view I consider it arrogant in the extreme to assume that the Union will survive no matter what injustices are heaped upon the English.

There is a growing clamour within England for the creation of an English Parliament to sit alongside the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A clamour that is being steadily ignored by complacent ‘Head in the Sand’ Unionists who blithely assume that the benefits of the Union are so obvious that nobody could possibly disagree.

But from an English perspective these benefits aren’t as obvious as the discrepancies in treatment meted out to those of us who are English.

Devolution emphasised the differences between the British nations whilst doing nothing to address what unites us. The World is changing whatever complacent Unionism might want. The English are losing their respect for a Union that does not respect them.

You can ignore the polls and try to pretend that the World hasn’t changed, or you can acknowledge reality and act accordingly.

An English Parliament will mean politicians elected to represent specifically English issues. That means that it will no longer be possible to ride roughshod over English interests. But at the end of the day you are either Unionists concerned for all the citizens of the Union, or you are crypto-nationalists only interested in what you can get out of it.

Whatever you choose though, you might want to consider what that choice and its attendant attitudes look like from an English perspective.

Move forward just two or three years on from when the above piece was written and look at the recently published 2011 Census results. 32 million people in England (60.4%) stated they had only English National Identity. 4.8 million people (9.1%) stated that their National Identity was “English and British”. Over 70% of England’s population are now expressing their identity as English, with the overwhelming majority now making clear that they considered themselves as exclusively English.

Devolution has divided us, and Unionists are simply not prepared to make the necessary reforms that the Union requires.

We saw an example of this division at the end of last week. Even leaving aside the irony of so-called “anti-racists” shouting “Go back home to your own country” at Nigel Farage, this was then followed by hostile interviews by Scottish journalists emphasising UKIP’s derisory support in Scotland, (in the last Scottish elections UKIP secured just 0.28% of first preference votes). As many others have pointed out, even though UKIP is (along with the Tories) essentially the only political party standing in all 4 nations of the UK, it has almost no support in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

UK politics make it clear that we lack a polity, a truly shared State.

Eurovision shows us that those divisions can be healed.

It is time that the UK dissolution that began in 1922 with the creation of the Irish Free State be taken to its logical conclusion: Independence for all. It is happening in slow motion in any event – each new tranche of devolved powers merely results in calls for further Devolution. In Northern Ireland’s case it is even more explicit: there is already a power sharing agreement with the Republic of Ireland along with the commitment to hold a referendum on Northern Ireland leaving the Union the moment they think such a referendum can be won.

The newly Independent nations of the former “United” Kingdom will still share the same Atlantic Islands. There is every reason to expect that these new nations will see the value in continued cross-border cooperation. There is already a “Council of the Isles” with representation for Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey – but not England. The omission of England can be rectified. Not a “British” Union with all the negative connotations, but rather an “Island” Commonwealth of largely independent but friendly and co-operating states.

It is now time to say farewell to an “old” Union that has lost its purpose and welcome a new form of Union with a brighter future for us all. The first step to this future is a positive Yes vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. We can forge new bonds between the nations of these Isles but first we must cast off the shackles of the old.

What a mess our housing law and market are in! The whole thing stems from a massive under-supply of affordable housing, to buy or rent. This under-supply fuelled the house-price bubble of the 2000s, with private landlords naturally keen to recoup as much of their over-inflated house purchases by charging high rents, while English Law in fact allows them to charge a so-called ‘market rent’, i.e. as much as they can get away with. This forces the poorer sections of society that haven’t climbed on to the dizzying housing ‘ladder’ to apply for housing benefit, which then effectively serves as a state subsidy to the private rental market. What madness!

The state’s money would far better be channelled into building more affordable housing, including social housing for rent. But then, that might permanently stymie the private housing market which, in reality, is what drove so much of the property and financial speculation behind the last decade’s boom and its inevitable bust. And the government so desperately wants the whole housing bubble to get going again!

Little attempt is made to reconcile the conflicting rights and requirements of property owners and private developers, on the one hand, and non-property owners and communities in need of decent, affordable homes, on the other; or the need for more development alongside the imperative to preserve natural environments that people cherish and which enhance their quality of life.

In my view, this is another reflection of how the UK government is unwilling to provide genuine national government for England. All of these matters – housing, planning, communities, environment – are devolved, and so the government’s responsibilities in these areas are limited to England. We need a national plan and policy vision for housing in England to try and get the balance right between private and social housing, and between unfettered private development and ensuring that new homes go into the areas that really need and want them, and where local people can afford to buy or rent them.

But the UK government is unwilling to act in the English public interest, and to put together joined-up social and economic policies for England, in the area of housing as in many other domains. This reflects both a general bias against the ‘national’ as such, as part of the post-Thatcher neo-liberal consensus, as well as a disavowal of England as the specific nation in play in these instances. In other words, the UK government does not wish to provide either national government – in the sense of being interventionist in economic and social policy – or for that nation to be England.

Either way, England is screwed.

Earlier in the week the Daily Express, Daily Mail reported  about the lunatic decision of Radstock town council to ban the Cross of St George.

The ‘thinking’ behind the decision is that some of Radstock’s 16 strong Muslim community  (out of a population of 5620) might be offended due the Cross of St George’s association with the crusades. Not that they are offended, but that they might be offended.

Eleanor Jackson, one of the Labour councillors that make up the council’s majority expanded on the point:

“My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.

Here we go again – the Cross of St George  ’hijacked by the far right’.  This rarely challenged meme is a favourite of British establishment politicians and lazy British establishment journalists. Unfortunately if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it. The unionist  think tank British Future ran a survey that concluded 24% of English people do actually consider their own national flag to be “racist”. Nearly a quarter of English people believe the anti English propaganda of the British establishment. Some are more susceptible to propaganda than others.

However the actual flag of choice for ‘far right’ political parties remains the Union Flag, as demonstrated over the years by the British Union of Fascists, the National Front, the British National Party and the British Freedom Party. Do an image search for “English Defence league rally” or similar and you will see that they too wave the Union Flag as much if not more than the Cross of St George.

The icing on the cake for this story is that Radstock Town Council is more than happy to fly the LGTB rainbow flag at times to engage with “various communities”. Presumably they’ve not considered that some folk in Radstock might be offended by that. Including quite possibly members of their Muslim population.

The problem here is not Muslims taking offence though,  it’s Labour politicians who hate England and the English. In this instance as with many others, you get exactly what you vote for.

Radstock Town Council can be contacted here. It would be good if councillors were reminded that Somerset is an English shire and that the Cross of St George is the English flag and that we’re not ashamed of England or of being English. Finally we can hope that the good people of Radstock have decent memories and vote these councillors out at the earliest opportunity.

See also the #StGeorge4all initiative on the Huffington Post and a reply by Stuart Parr of Wonko’s World.

Just why are the Tories so fixated on the EU? All this business of a ‘regret motion’ and a draft bill for an in / out referendum by 2017, which isn’t even binding, is really unedifying. And the truth of the matter is, nailing their British colours to the mast in this fashion isn’t going to buy them any, or many, votes.

While the EU is indeed an important issue for many voters, it isn’t a priority one. A recent opinion poll I heard about on the radio indicated it was viewed as a key issue by only 7% of voters (presumably UK-wide). In this respect, it’s a bit like an English parliament: while surveys have consistently shown a majority or large minority of English people in favour, it’s regarded as a really minor issue compared with the economy, employment and living standards. Hence, petitions in support of an English parliament on the government’s petitions website have hardly got off the starting blocks.

The same applies for UKIP voters. I think it was a YouGov survey, ahead of this month’s English county-council elections, that indicated the EU was actually only the fifth-most important issue for UKIP supporters after immigration, the economy, employment and crime. So if David Cameron thought he was going to lance the UKIP boil by his commitment to holding an in / out EU referendum by 2017, made earlier in the year, he was sadly mistaken, as the rapid rise in UKIP support since then, and especially since the elections, has demonstrated.

So why are the Conservatives continuing to obsess about the EU, given that a renewed commitment to holding a referendum by 2017 is quadruply not going to win over people who have switched, or are thinking of switching, over to UKIP: 1) because the referendum is not referred to as binding in the draft bill; 2) because the Bill has no chance of being passed in the present Parliament; 3) because 2017 is in any case viewed as being too far away, especially as the Conservatives are unlikely to win a parliamentary majority in 2015; and 4) because UKIP supporters are more motivated by other issues?

I think it’s because many Conservative activists are genuinely eurosceptic, so they see this as their opportunity and are trying to seize the moment. In addition, the Tories are s***-scared of the UKIP threat. This is not just because, at the present level of support they’re winning, UKIP could seriously undermine the Tories’ chances in 2015 and may even cost them some of their existing seats. In addition, the Conservative Party faces the prospect of a real internal split, rather like the one that saw the SDP break away from the Labour Party in the 1980s – a split that could easily begin with eurosceptic Tory MPs jumping ship to UKIP.

I think that’s the reason why the Conservative Party is panicking: it’s more to do with internal politics than anything such as the ‘national interest’, let alone the interests of England, which is a concept that’s about as far removed from such eurosceptics’ preferences in matters of governance as Brussels itself, despite those who derisorily slander Tory and UKIP euroscepticism as a form of English nationalism.

And this is him yesterday putting “the positive, principled, forward-looking case for a strong Scottish Parliament inside a strong United Kingdom” as part of a new Labour run anti Scottish independence campaign.

“I want to to put the case for the pooling and sharing of resources right across the United Kingdom, and the benefit we all get in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland from UK pensions, from UK National Insurance, from UK funding of healthcare, from the UK minimum wage.

See what he didn’t do there? Not the “equal sharing” of resources – just the “sharing” of resources. As a man in charge of the Barnett Formula for ten or so years he knows exactly what he is saying there. The UK funding of healthcare is particularly interesting as one of Brown’s last acts as Chancellor was to slash England’s NHS budget by a third.

“There are equal social, political and economic rights for people no matter which community you live in, no matter whether you are in a poor area or a rich area of the country.

Equal political rights? Scots get equal political rights – the ones in Scotland anyway. They have their own elected Scottish parliament. And that’s where the equal political rights end. The English have never even been asked if we’d like to re-establish our own parliament, all  we got was a choice to split England up into regions. We had no say about London being regionalised.

Equal economic rights. That’s the Barnett Formula again and the knock on consequences for English services.

“I could put the case for the Union by talking about how our defence needs are common, our security needs are mutual, our environmental concerns are shared, that we are part of one single island. But I want to make the case, the most modern case for the Union, for the pooling and sharing of resources so that we are in a position to tackle poverty, unemployment together.

“Our environmental concerns are shared” might just be fair enough. But on security and defence; it’s his precious Union that puts everyone in the home nations at risk. It’s the UK’s top table, punching above its weight, delusions of grandeur that puts “us” in harms way. It’s one war after another with the British government and it always has been.

“We are in a position to fund a National Health Service based on the principle that it is free at the point of need. Therefore, I want to make the case for a Union for social justice, dominated by our principle of fairness.”

That’s nice for them. Meanwhile in England we have the UK parliament looking after our NHS and while much of is free at the point of need there are countless (no-one is counting) English old folks paying out small fortunes every year to pay for visiting care that’s free in Scotland.

Having a Scottish Parliament as part of the UK gives people in Scotland “the best insurance policy I think we could have in the world”.

Rub it in why don’t you? What a shame the British government never thought to offer the English any say on an English parliament. But then like the there’s no equal sharing of resources, there’s no equal democracy either.

And now for anyone returning from a deep space mission or having recently awoken from a lengthy vegetative state here’s Gordon Brown telling us how Scottish Gordon Brown is,

“I yield to no one in my pride in what we have achieved in getting devolution for the Scottish Parliament.

“And I too am happy to consider what we can do in the future to make that devolution settlement better.

“I yield to no one in my pride in being Scottish. I was born in Scotland. I was brought up in Scotland, went to school in Scotland. I live in Scotland. My children were born in Scotland. My sons are at school in Scotland. My sons are growing up in Scotland.

Add a dash of the obligatory fear via dire warnings of loss of earnings. Added.

“You (the people of independent Scotland) would lose half the share of corporation tax revenue. Then what would happen is the English would cut their corporation tax, the Welsh would demand they had the right to cut theirs, the Northern Irish already want the right to cut theirs.

“Then there would be a race to the bottom and soon we would have very little revenue at all from corporations operating in the United Kingdom.”

Is he acknowledging that Scottish independence leads to English independence here? Most unionist MPs are clinging desperately to the idea of a rump UK that will paddle on without Scotland. No doubt that’s what UK MPs would like but I don’t think it would take long before the weight of English public opinion sunk that idea.

There’s plenty more of Gordon Brown’s speech here on the Herald Scotland website. Essentially he yields to no-one on anything, he’s really, really Scottish, his kids are Scottish and his dog is Scottish. The Union is great for Scotland and Scots and essentially there’s nothing in the Union for the English – but you knew that anyway.

And top it all off Brown as a Scottish UK MP still  has far more say on what happens in England than he does in Scotland. What a mess, what a Union.

Just about the only ray of light in the BBC’s appalling St George’s Day coverage last month was this discussion on Englishness from Radio 3′s Night Waves. If you have time we recommend you listen to the whole thing.

Philip Dodd, Jesse Norman MP, Lord Maurice Glasman, the author Paul Kingsnorth, theatre director Lisa Goldman, Dr Joanne Parker of the English Department of Exeter University and the broadcaster and historian Michael Wood discuss the enigma of Englishness and its uses as an identity.

Towards the end of the discussion Philip Dodd asked panellists to suggest an English hero or heroine. Lisa Goldman having been pretty much against the idea of England all the way through the programme suggested Joan Littlewood, Paul Kingsnorth chose Hereward the Wake, Michael Wood chose William Shakespeare, Joanne Parker went with Alfred the Great and to some collective mirth and Michael Wood scoffing “you must be joking”, Maurice Glassman father of Labour’s Blue Labour chose Oliver Cromwell. It’s a shame there wasn’t time to discuss why those choices were made.

We at the English Standard think Cromwell is a pretty decent choice and an almost definite winner if he’d kept out of Ireland. Anyway we English are certainly blessed when it comes to heroes  and heroines.

We’d be interested to know who our readers consider England’s greatest hero or heroine to be and why? Let us know in the comments please.

St George’s Day passed with barely a mention on the rest of the BBC network. How about next year we take St George’s Day and the English cause to the BBC instead. Anyone interested in joining a protest demanding a BBC England should get in touch. We’ve just under 12 months to organise something – how about it?

The English Standard needs your help to keep going.

We’ve been up and running for about 16 months now and the bottom line is that we’re struggling to keep going. What we need most right now is new articles, regular columns and other reader content and comment. We’re still on the look out for a regular current affairs columnist who can analyse UK politics from an English nationalist perspective – this would involve a couple of short articles a week.

Little Jonny’s historical knowledge may be a bit hazy but he knows, or thinks he knows what went on in 1066….. Was it the Battle of Hasty? Was it between the forces of normal Duke William and sexy King Harry? Did William’s conker smack King Harry in the eye, causing really quite a lot of bruising to his face? Was it transmitted live on a reality TV programme called ‘I’m Normal, You’re Sexy – Who’ll Win? YOU DECIDE!’…..?

Maybe not.

What little Jonny may not know was that the year 1066 was much, much more than the Battle of Hastings. It is actually known as ‘the year of the three battles’ – but to be more specific, it should be referred to as ‘the three weeks of the three battles’. They came, bang, bang, bang, one after the other.The first and least well known of the three was the Battle of Fulford which took place on the 20^th September in a field just outside York and close to the village of Fulford.

The chief protagonists were an Anglo Saxon army led by Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar – they were trying to repulse an invading Viking army led by the mighty Harald Hardrada and the traitorous Tostig Godwinson. The battle was bloody, with substantial casualties on both sides. But Hardrada prevailed and the combined Anglo Saxon forces of Mercia and Northumberland were cut to pieces..

So who knew? Fulford is anonymous to most of the population – yet, its impact, significance and eventual consequence cannot be exaggerated . Because the English lost, Harold Godwinson force marched his army up from the south coast to fight Hardrada and Tostig at the Battle of Stamford Bridge barely a week after Fulford.

Harold prevailed, Tostig and Hardrada were slain along with a great many of the Viking army. They arrived in over 300 ships – the survivors who were allowed to sail back to Scandinavia filled just 27 longboats. But Harold’s forces were also depleted, his Mercian and Northumbrian armies had already been wiped out at Fulford and he’d obviously lost men and equipment in the Battle of Stamford Bridge. And two forced marches up to York then back down to the south coast must have taken a heavy toll on army stamina and moral. But just a couple of weeks after Stamford Bridge, Harold faced Duke William at Senlac Hill…. The rest, as they say, is history.

Without the loss at Fulford, Harold would have had many more soldiers to call on. They’d have been fresher and more able to repulse the Norman invader. Someof his army had fought three battles in a little over three weeks, most had marched 400 miles in double quick time….. If there was ever a pivotal battle in English history, Fulford was it.So by rights, it should be right up there along with other singularly epic events, just like Hastings, Bosworth Field, Naseby and the Battle of Britain….

But it isn’t – and the complacent nonentities at York City Council have just passed a planning application to build 600 new houses on the battlefield site. Another example of our heritage, our fields of conflict being treated with such disrespect by the jumped-up brigade. No historical battlefield in England is safe – Naseby has been cut in two by a major trunk road which is now going to be widened.Wind-farms are also being shoved on it, as well as the battlefield at Towton. An incinerator plant and ‘Battle Business Park’has been shoved onto Shrewsbury….. And so it goes.

Read about it here – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-battle-of-fulford-war-breaks-out-over-forgotten-yorkshire-battlefield-8581504.html

Background information on the battle here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford

Do something about it here – join the Battlefields Trust http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/default.asp

There has been a lot of fuss about whether Scotland would remain in the EU after voting for Independence. One of the real reasons why this is even a matter for discussion is that the EU guarantees free movement of both goods and people and so at a stroke it removes the Unionist argument that Independence will mean border posts, customs duties and job losses for those unable to work in a “foreign” country.

Hence the determination by both sides to have their version of what will happen prevail.

Of course, as is usual when politicians open their mouths, all that we can hear are lies and nonsense. Cast your minds back to when the EU’s Lisbon Constitutional Treaty was first signed. All the main political parties had made manifesto promises that we the people would get a Referendum. And as usual, they all lied. Just consider the main three parties:

• I don’t know why everyone was so surprised that Nick Clegg reneged on his promise to students with regards to tuition fees. After all he had “form” – he’d already reneged on the promise of our getting the EU referendum. So much for the vacuous Liberal “Democrat” boast that they believe in trusting the people with political power!
• Perhaps our worst Prime Minister ever, Gordon Brown, felt some shame in signing the Treaty on our behalf when he sneaked in to sign it away from the glare of the cameras of the main signing – but more likely he just wanted to avoid photographic evidence of his latest crime.
• And as for David Cameron’s “Cast Iron” promise – well that was just the first promise he broke. The self-declared “Heir to Blair” promptly proving himself just as shifty as the man he so openly admired.

Thus whether we liked it or not, (having had no say), we are now signed up to a Constitutional Treaty that has a very clear process for leaving the European Union – Article 50.

Scotland is an existing EU Region. This is beyond dispute. Leaving the EU requires a negotiated withdrawal and an announcement that these negotiations are to begin – again, beyond dispute. This has not happened, nor has the Scottish Government any intention of making such an announcement. Nor could they, as this is currently a power reserved to Westminster – and Westminster has no intention of making such a declaration either. Therefore Scotland will remain a member of the EU should it vote for Independence.

Q.E.D.

One of the seemingly intractable problems we have is that both communities within Northern Ireland have developed what can only be described as a “siege mentality”. It leads to a situation whereby there is automatic suspicion about any initiatives that are taken and a tendency to see politics as a “zero-sum game” whereby any advantage gained by one side must automatically be to the detriment of the other.

For harmony to prevail it is important that society’s members do not begin to see themselves as being constantly singled out to their direct disadvantage. For them not to begin to develop a “siege mentality” it is vital that their culture is respected rather than being constantly attacked.

Therefore, this St George’s Day, I have to ask: Why are so-called “Unionists” not as appalled as I am at the constant denigration of the English? Why do Unionists continue to insist that their actions are not resulting in a slowly building resentment amongst the English population?

No doubt there are many readers already dismissing what I am saying as nothing more than the rantings of another English Nationalist.

But ask yourself this.

Who would have thought of the idea of English Nationalism as being a commonplace and widespread phenomenon even as little as 15 years ago?

Devolution has made the Scots more Scottish and the Welsh more Welsh. So how can it be so surprising that it has made the English more English? After all, Devolution deliberately stoked nationalism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would have been more surprising if this hadn’t had any effect on the English!

The dangers were obvious from the start. A resurgent English identity would have the potential to weaken and destabilise the Union. However the response to this possibility was nothing more than insane. By deliberately attempting to suppress English identity they have only succeeded in inflaming English identity. But more perplexing though is the wilful refusal to even recognise that this is happening.

Just look at the recently published 2011 Census results. England had over 32 million (32,007,983) people (or 60.4%) who stated they had only English National Identity. A further 4.8 million (4,820,181) people (or 9.1%) stated that their National Identity was “English and British”. That means over 70% of England’s population were expressing their identity as English and with the overwhelming majority now making clear that they considered themselves as exclusively English. The “British Only” contingent is down to a mere 10 million (10,171,834) people (or 19.2%).

This isn’t (yet) a threat to the Union. However there is a definite shift in attitudes, a resentment at always drawing the short straw. It is unfocused for now – but for how much longer?

Neal Ascherson understood the likely results as long ago as April 2005 when he made the following remark in a Prospect Magazine article:

“Yes, there is an emerging Englishness which is still thought to be slightly incorrect. Something is bursting to come out. But sadly, the English intelligentsia, or the liberal English middle class, which ought to be leading political developments, ought to be taking over this emerging feeling; saying yes, let’s make a democratic, tolerant, forward-looking nation; is just sitting back and saying ‘English nationalism, awful, horrible, leave it to the yobs’.”

And so England is being reborn with a siege mentality. The Union is no longer seen as something forged to our mutual benefit but rather as a zero-sum game to the continual disadvantage of the English – and with predictable results.

Happy St George’s Day.

Image Attribution: WyrdLight.com

But in many nations, there are laws which protect the flag. Laws which can see you punished with fines, prison, and worse.

In some nations, desecration is legal. As a signal of free speech. Even, here in Japan, there is no law protecting the Hinamaru. However, in Japan, there are pretty strong laws protecting the flags of other nations!

However, flags are somewhat awkward things to show every day. They require people to carry a big stick. Something that is cumbersome at best, and a practice frowned upon by most police services.

So, what else can we do to show our unity? Something which is slightly more practical than carrying a piece of lumber round with us all day. Many nations have a national costume. Some are more practical than others. A costume which people recognise as representing a nation and its people. Something you can wear, and move, and dance in.

Most costumes however have become too fine to wear naturally, so they are now saved for important moments. For example, here in Japan, you have the Kimono. A most exquisitely designed and woven outfit of silk consisting of several layers which are wound and folded in such a way that no buckles are needed. And as the Cherry Blossoms begin to bloom, the Japanese begin ramping up for the year. The Cherry Blossoms mark the start of Spring. And see people heading to parks to enjoy the blooms, and drink a lot of Sake! But one thing you will see is a lot of ladies (and some men!) in their finest!

Everyone knows the Kimono. When you see one, you automatically know it is Japanese. There is a Kimono for men as well, but it is far less elaborate and somewhat duller of colour and much more easy to move in (Better for a man to wield his Katana!) The Kimono has become so thick with the number of layers that it is very hard for one to put it on. Unless a woman undertakes a class for several months it is hard to dress oneself without help! Indeed, the Kimono is now only usually worn for celebrations such as weddings, graduations, winter festivals (I did say it was thick!) and the “Coming of age” ceremony for when you turn 20. Boys usually opt for the standard business suit for this…

Indeed, the Kimono has become so dramatic and cumbersome that there is a secondary costume, the Yukata which takes many of the elements of the Kimono but slims them down to make it easier and cooler to wear. Usually when someone arrives in Japan this is the costume you see, not the thicker Kimono.

Many nations have national dress of some sort. Something that when you see, you think “Ah! This comes from…”

For example, Stetson hat, jeans, cowboy boots? This shouts “America.”  Lederhosen? Tyrolean hat? Germany. The Sari as we all recognise as Indian. The Barong Tagalog is a light overshirt which is heavily embroidered and comes from the Philippines. The Ushanka? Well, the all-famed Russian hat.

Even in the UK we have national costume. The Scots have the tartan kilt (dress) and sporran. The Welsh ladies have a long black dress with a felt hat and a shawl. For men, it’s a waistcoat, jacket, neckerchief, breeches, and stockings. This is not so well known simply because it is very similar to what was worn by men in England during the 17 and 1800’s.

In Ireland, there is the Leine. A tunic that was narrow at the top, wide at the bottom. Worn by both men and women. However, it has since developed and today you see it most commonly worn by Irish dancers. It looks like a dress, with celtic knot patterns.

However, in England, what do we have? Football shirts? Grey suits with bowler hats? There are some costumes which are from England, but are not seen as national costume. For example, the east end of London has the famed Pearly Kings and Queens. Towns and villages across England feature traditional Morris dancing groups which have their own costume. Usually a white outfit decorated with bright cloth and bells.

There are some who would push for Englands national costume to be that which was worn by the Anglo-Saxons. Simple cloth tunics. I can understand the logic since it was the Angles who gave us our name.

However, whilst Britain keeps pushing for multiculturalism, each community will continue to have its own symbols. Something that the media celebrates as a show of how inclusive The UK is. When in fact, it helps to build a wall between communities. Keeping us all pocketed up.