UK Politics - I Protest

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

But what can Labour do in this situation.

Frankly, they should ignore it. As you say, it's a trap. Labour will never out-flag the conservatives (and even if they could I wouldn't want them to try). It's painfully obvious that's not an issue Starmer actually gives a shit about, and people can smell the insincerity a mile off. They should just side-step the entire debate and focus on hammering the government on it's actual record every chance they get.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Flags, yeah it's a trap for Labour basically. Nobody really cares about whether there are flags on top of buildings, what they actually pay attention to is when people want them taken down or take exception to them. It's all part of Labour's problem that it really struggles to look like it's proud of Britain and it's achievements. That is basically what a voting population would like, at a bare minimum, to not feel like the Government is ashamed of their country. 

The problem is that we are one of those nations in the world where we do feel ashamed to have any national pride, because of the associations to football hooligans and racists. I remember during world cups and everyone around the area would have their flags in the window.. but if you saw an english one you'd feel uncomfortable and just assume racists lived there. It's just odd, I don't see that in other countries. 

But what can Labour do in this situation. If they complain about it or make comments about it then they have basically lost, it just confirms everything voters they were trying to win back were thinking about them. They are already trying to wash off that Corbyn stain, and this is one of those ways that they will struggle.

The whole 'culture wars' thing is battle Labour really cannot win, which is why the Tories will ramp it up when they can. 

I don't ever recall seeing the Union Jack at World Cup events. The St. George Cross,  and the St. Andrew's Cross are the ones that come to mind. 

[Werthead]

The principle purpose of flags is to identify a sports team/army/consular building/embassy, usually when in foreign climes. If, on the other hand, you are standing outside Norwich Town Hall and you don't know what country you're in to the extent of needing a flag to tell you, you probably have bigger problems to deal with.

Yes, other countries go overboard with their appreciation of flags. They have flags flying from government buildings, ordinary houses, dog kennels and sewage works. But that's always seen a bit gauche by British standards, a bit American. Not the sort of thing we should be indulging in outside of national holidays, WWII celebrations and anything vaguely related to the Queen.

And yes, the Union flag being at a World Cup would be weird. The English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish flags (and others for people supporting those teams), sure, but the Union flag would be weird as there isn't a Union team (to the constant grumbling of other nations).

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

 

Yes, other countries go overboard with their appreciation of flags. They have flags flying from government buildings, ordinary houses, dog kennels and sewage works. But that's always seen a bit gauche by British standards, a bit American. Not the sort of thing we should be indulging in outside of national holidays, WWII celebrations and anything vaguely related to the Queen.

It's true, we are pretty gauche. It's a little demoralizing to see American-style flag-humping and flag worship purity tests cropping up on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's true, we are pretty gauche. It's a little demoralizing to see American-style flag-humping and flag worship purity tests cropping up on the other side of the Atlantic.

During the Dunblane commemorations there were some very confused Americans of a certain type telling us we shouldn't have banned handguns after the school shooting and instead given everyone guns, and that way we would have had even less school shootings than the 0 we've had since then. Or something.

[Heartofice]

22 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I don't ever recall seeing the Union Jack at World Cup events. The St. George Cross,  and the St. Andrew's Cross are the ones that come to mind. 

Probably why I said england 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The idea that no matter who someone is, what beliefs they have or where they are from, they can all come together and be British / ‘insert nationality’

Funnily enough, that's a very 21st-century-left-wing-universalist definition of nationalism you have right there.
Coming from you, I find that touchingly naive.

[DaveSumm]

I wonder whether the confusion over which country one belongs to has watered down general patriotism in the UK. My understanding is that the word ‘country’ is correct for both England and the United Kingdom, rendering it a bit useless. Do I literally live in two countries simultaneously? 

I honestly couldn’t tell you whether I ‘feel’ British or English. I guess I don’t feel like I’m leaving when I visit Wales, as the culture doesn’t change in any significant way. I’ve just never identified with nationalism generally, I pay taxes to this government and I live here, but past that I don’t feel any pride or shame about it. I don’t really understand how I could feel pride about something I had no hand in shaping, to be honest.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough, that's a very 21st-century-left-wing-universalist definition of nationalism you have right there.
Coming from you, I find that touchingly naive.

Coming from another naive left wing universalist that means a lot.

2 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I wonder whether the confusion over which country one belongs to has watered down general patriotism in the UK. My understanding is that the word ‘country’ is correct for both England and the United Kingdom, rendering it a bit useless. Do I literally live in two countries simultaneously? 

I honestly couldn’t tell you whether I ‘feel’ British or English. I guess I don’t feel like I’m leaving when I visit Wales, as the culture doesn’t change in any significant way. I’ve just never identified with nationalism generally, I pay taxes to this government and I live here, but past that I don’t feel any pride or shame about it. I don’t really understand how I could feel pride about something I had no hand in shaping, to be honest.

Nobody outside the UK understands it’s structure either. There is an issue with Britishness in that it really is often just a byword for English , and it’s understandable that the smaller nations would feel sidelined by that and not feel represented. 
 

If someone asks, I say English, I rarely say British, that feels like an Americanism for some reason. 

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I wonder whether the confusion over which country one belongs to has watered down general patriotism in the UK. My understanding is that the word ‘country’ is correct for both England and the United Kingdom, rendering it a bit useless. Do I literally live in two countries simultaneously? 

I honestly couldn’t tell you whether I ‘feel’ British or English. I guess I don’t feel like I’m leaving when I visit Wales, as the culture doesn’t change in any significant way. I’ve just never identified with nationalism generally, I pay taxes to this government and I live here, but past that I don’t feel any pride or shame about it. I don’t really understand how I could feel pride about something I had no hand in shaping, to be honest.

Yes, the UK is a country that consists of four countries. I suppose you could argue it's four former countries (or three former countries and one-bit-we-carved-off-from-another-one) which continue to retain some individual powers and their own sports teams.

I compare it to the United States, except we only have four states rather than fifty and all the states were formerly independent countries rather than just two, and even the USA doesn't try to field fifty sports teams.

I also think if you spend significant amounts of time in Wales, Scotland and especially Northern Ireland, cultural differences will become more readily apparent (though that is also true, to a lesser degree, in Cornwall as well). The four nations share a common language and currency, but the history is contentious and usually only considered not to be by English people (who are also much more likely to have a limited or non-existent understanding of that history).

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I wonder whether the confusion over which country one belongs to has watered down general patriotism in the UK. My understanding is that the word ‘country’ is correct for both England and the United Kingdom, rendering it a bit useless. Do I literally live in two countries simultaneously?

A "country" is supposed to be an "independent sovereign state" (it's supposed to have a government at least).
I do not believe England can be described as such.
It's one of the reasons the UK is not defined as a federation btw (England not having a local assembly).

OTOH, a "nation" is "a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory."
Notice the "or" : nations can be based on anything that, when shared, can give a strong sense of community. They are "imagined communities" (in the words of Benedict Anderson). Something as silly as kicking a ball around can give a strong sense of community to some humans.

Nations can exist without states, and states/countries often include more than one nation (at least at the moment of creation).
It's up to each individual to decide whether they feel closer to one single nation, or whether they feel they belong to several. For instance, I can personally relate to at least three nation-states, and one "super-nation" (Europe).
Sometimes, states do not succeed in developing a strong national identity and collapse (see: Soviet Union).

The prime irony of Brexit is that the UK is itself a "super-nation" (obviously, it contains at least 4 nations), and that its national identity is sometimes rejected by some of its inhabitants. Not unlike the EU.
It's how I understood Jo Swinson's warning about "nationalism sweeping both sides of the border" at least. Quite obviously, the same impulses that lead to Brexit could lead to the end of the UK (though tbh, I doubt it, but there will certainly be some strife).

@mormont's take on this is bound to be interesting.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

It's how I understood Jo Swinson's warning about "nationalism sweeping both sides of the border" at least. Quite obviously, the same impulses that lead to Brexit could lead to the end of the UK (though tbh, I doubt it, but there will certainly be some strife).

Northern Ireland leaving the Union is pretty much inevitable at this juncture, and there is a window of opportunity opening for Scotland to leave. Whether that is a permanent window - Scotland is on a trajectory to leave the Union no matter what - or a temporary one, which could close over time, is uncertain.

So the Union as it currently stands is certainly doomed, but it remains to be seen if it will remain with three or two countries moving forwards. There certainly won't be four countries in the Union in fifty years time (and probably not twenty).

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

National pride is about a sense of collective spirit and togetherness. The idea that no matter who someone is, what beliefs they have or where they are from, they can all come together and be British / ‘insert nationality’

If you don’t have that then it just means that everyone sub divides and goes and finds their own groups and identities and then everyone clashes. 
 

I think we’ve spent too long demonising national pride and a sense of national collective and its come home to roost. I don’t have any issue at all with promoting Britishness and giving people a sense of pride.

But erasure and derision is exactly what happens from certain people who are more invested in the British label. 
 

I never understood why proud brits would hate the teaching of minority and national languages, or mock cultural activities and Welsh, Scottish even Cornish pride. When you mock those things and try and force people to exist within a narrow definition of what it is to be “British” you push them away and push them out. 
 

Look, I have a Celtic Studies degree, I make a lot of content (podcast, social media) about “Celtic” topics and folklore, history and culture and I see this nonsense again and again. 
 

do I also see anti-English sentiment that I don’t like? Absolutely. But this Imperial British identity is what people really don’t like, the violence, the entitlement, the cultural and historical erasure. 
 

in an ideal world British people could feel proud (AND critical) of all aspects of the history and culture here but we aren’t there, this gov is pushing people further away all the time so this forcing of people into a strict definition through means of punishment if they don’t conform, as well as the erasure of history and invention of culture wars is some of the final nails in the UK coffin. 

[Theda Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Frankly, they should ignore it. As you say, it's a trap. Labour will never out-flag the conservatives (and even if they could I wouldn't want them to try). It's painfully obvious that's not an issue Starmer actually gives a shit about, and people can smell the insincerity a mile off. They should just side-step the entire debate and focus on hammering the government on it's actual record every chance they get.

Exactly. Goodness me, this government is giving them enough fuel to criticise and oppose...this should be one of the easiest periods to be the opposition...

[Theda Baratheon]

48 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Northern Ireland leaving the Union is pretty much inevitable at this juncture, and there is a window of opportunity opening for Scotland to leave. Whether that is a permanent window - Scotland is on a trajectory to leave the Union no matter what - or a temporary one, which could close over time, is uncertain.

So the Union as it currently stands is certainly doomed, but it remains to be seen if it will remain with three or two countries moving forwards. There certainly won't be four countries in the Union in fifty years time (and probably not twenty).

United Ireland & Scottish and Welsh independence certainly feels like something I will see in my lifetime. 
 

I’m not really going to talk about whether or not I’m pro-Indy because truthfully I don’t even know but I understand where a lot of people are coming from at least and I’m sympathetic  to some of the arguments - but I just think this government and Johnson will truly be the ones to blame if it comes to pass - it will be from their failures that this will happen moreso than people simply deciding they don’t want to be part of the Union anymore for no reason, that decision and feeling comes from somewhere. 

[A wilding]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

National pride is about a sense of collective spirit and togetherness. The idea that no matter who someone is, what beliefs they have or where they are from, they can all come together and be British / ‘insert nationality’

Agreed.

The problem comes when the government attempts a top down imposition of such national pride. Particularly an incompetent, corrupt government with authoritarian instincts like the one we have at the moment. Personally I think the the deeply ingrained national habit of mocking and sabotaging such attempts is something that we should all feel some pride about.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

@mormont's take on this is bound to be interesting.

I think there's a more accurate account than 'four countries in the UK', which is two nations, one principality and a province (and some assorted scraps like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc.)

Not to speak for the Welsh, but I think there are reasons why support for Welsh independence is weaker and less widespread than for Scottish independence. Wales has been politically, legally and even in some parts culturally more integrated into England than Scotland has, and for longer. It's still distinct in its identity, perhaps even more so than areas like Cornwall, but Scotland has had its own legal system all along, is geographically more distant and separate, and now has more self-governance. For all those reasons, I'd call it a different nation. Some will say 'ah, but you're biased because of sentiment' but that sentiment, folks, did not spring out of nowhere. It exists in many Scots precisely because of these differences.

Northern Ireland has always been an uncomfortable anomaly, a largely artificial creation designed to accommodate a cultural and political difference within a nation, rather than being a distinct nation of its own. I don't think there are many who think it won't be part of a united Ireland eventually now. It's a question of time.

England itself is not unitary and that's something that gets overlooked in these discussions. It's a nation, yes, but one that was created by the union over time of other nations. Still, as one nation, it's so much more populous than the other parts of the UK that it creates a problem in a democratic union. Wert talked about imagining the UK as four states instead of fifty. To develop that, imagine that the US consisted of California, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Wyoming. How politically stable would that be? Exactly.

[Derfel Cadarn]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

During the Dunblane commemorations there were some very confused Americans of a certain type telling us we shouldn't have banned handguns after the school shooting and instead given everyone guns, and that way we would have had even less school shootings than the 0 we've had since then. Or something.

This month is the 25th anniversary since Dunblane. Comments written by Boris Johnson around that time (particularly involving the proposed gun ban), who was a journalist, are as you’d expect.

[Theda Baratheon]

Nation and country are different things though. I would actually argue that Cornwall is a nation in the true sense of the world. The Cornish are a recognised national minority after all. And it is one of the six Celtic nations. In that sense Wales is definitely a nation and country. 
 

I actually think Welsh independence is rising hugely, I’m keeping a keen eye on both movements for interests sake and support is rising all of the time. It is more widespread in Scotland at the moment but I don’t think Wales is leagues behind. 
 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough, that's a very 21st-century-left-wing-universalist definition of nationalism you have right there.
Coming from you, I find that touchingly naive.

Engaging in Nationalism by itself doesn’t necessarily have to lead to bad outcomes.

Look at Indian nationalism in the 20th century in response to British colonialism. Muslim or Hindu or Sikh? Indians forgot about that for a moment and worked to free themselves from colonial rule.

But usually the opposite takes place.

Example: nazi Germany. A lot of Jews, gypsies, whose families spent generations living in Germany weren’t truly apart Germany. 
 Nationalism in Europe tends to get people very picky on who actually is a real citizen and what rights need be restricted. 
You know to protect the national identity

there’s an unfortunate expectation from nationalistic members of a dominant groups for everyone else of less social and political power to ignore any mistreatment towards them in current society out of some fear of an outside threat which may not actually treat them substantially differently from the dominant groups.

Don’t talk about the nation’s treatment within regards to  lgbt rights, women’s rights, or racism.

If they are to be brought it is to bludgeon other nations who supposedly do worse on them.