Michael Wallace-Macpherson writes as a private citizen:

Mike Small (Fife, Guardian) calls for "a progressive English movement for self-determination".

National identity, flag waving and sadly even sabre rattling are back in fashion, not only in Europe but across the world. Fortifying national identity, for politicians, their scribes, poets and television/internet personalities is an easy (and very old) game to play.

Who needs national identity? Cui bono?

It may be fruitful to glance back to "Cold War" times. *

"We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history. A third world war is not merely possible but increasingly likely . . . In Europe, the main geographical stage for the East-West confrontation, new generations of ever more deadly nuclear weapons are appearing."

The authors argued not just for disarmament (a nuclear-free Europe "from Poland to Portugal”) but also for the destruction of the bloc system that had divided Europe since 1945 – a goal it envisaged being achieved by a novel strategy of “détente from below”:

"The remedy lies in our own hands . . . We must commence to act as if a united, neutral and pacific Europe already exists. We must learn to be loyal, not to ‘East’ or ‘West’, but to each other, and we must disregard the prohibitions and limitations imposed by any national state . . . We must resist any attempt by the statesmen of East and west to manipulate this movement to their own advantage."

Although the division of Europe was reduced in 1989/90, tension between the heavily armed East (Russia and remnants of the USSR) and West remains, recently growing. The idea that the "free market" will lead to stable peace seems insufficient for the task. We face not only proliferation of nuclear weapons but also climate disruption and globally operating terror. Relationships between peoples call for strategies other than, better than those which have been tried.

"We must learn to be loyal, not to ‘East’ or ‘West’, but to each other, and we must disregard the prohibitions and limitations imposed by any national state ..."

How can this ideal be put into practice?

-----------------------

*European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal issued in April 1980

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nuclear_Disarmament

[...] July 29, 2007 at 11:55 am | In English Parliament | Tom Waterhouse (Abingdon, CEP): Mike Small (Lessons in Democracy and Self-Determination) makes some valid points about pushing forward the case for an English [...]

Progressive Englishness?

That is for the English to define

Sarah, what are you on about?

! posted the following in March on the Scotsman site.

"I keep saying this because it's true

The major positive consequence of Scottish Independence will be an Independent England free of the ghastly, gharish and taste free legacy of 'Britain'.

Because: England is a large, beautiful and wealthy nation, with enormous potential - not yet realised.

B*llocks to Rule Britanianna

Blake and Shakespear rule.

put away the Union Jack

and

Bring me my bow of burning gold!

Bring me my arrows of desire!

Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!

Bring me my charriot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land

http://poetry.eserver.org/new-jerusalem.html"

and this:

"Yes to Willam Morris

Yes to Private Eye

Yes to 1,000,000+ decent people in the streets of London on 15 February 2003.

NO to Thatcher/Bliar/Whatever pollock is next seen on a tank

Yes to Fish and Chips

Yes to Brummie Accents

Yes to Dunkertons Cider, straight off the farm

No to the BNP

No to the Dead Hand of the Treasury"

and I add this today:

No to anti-Scots English racists

No to anti-English Scots racists

Aa the best

Derick, Shetlander, Scot, reluctant 'Briton' and SNP member

Thanks for your kind comments Sarah.

I'd say 'progressive' could be defined as looking forwards - seeking positive solutions to social problems and seeing this as not only possible but vital and necessary. I'd say another characteristic of a 'progresisve agenda' might be being open-minded to change and to new options, doing things differently.

You're quite right that I would think in these terms from a left tradition, though (arguably) defined in these terms - you could have a 'progressive' agenda from the right.

All sound advice, but is Jerusalem a 'homage to an ancient monarchy'?

I would have thought that Blake was exactly the kind of radical that a progressive English nationalism would look to.

Thanks for the suggestions Mike.

I don't agree with all that you have to say but it's nice to have some constructive honest input instead of the usual obfuscation, excuses and 'anomalies' that are so often the currency whenever the subject of English self-determination is broached.

On the subject of tips Canon Kenyon Wright is worth a read.

Hi Tom - "I’m sure that Jerusalem suffers from some of the same pretensions and frailties as a homage to an ancient monarchy"... I'm referring to God Save the Queen.

Sorry it's maybe not very clear.

Thanks for the Canon link.

What's a progressive movement? One that thinks living on benefits when you're perfectly capable of working is an acceptable lifestyle choice? That thinks muggers and bunglers should be treated as 'victims'? That sobs over foreign criminals that the British government, in a rare feat of competence, has deported? Getting on the hair-shirts, sack-cloth & ashes if you're English in permanent apology for your past misdeeds?

You haven't defined 'progressive' and you seem to be taking as read that whatever you think do define it as, will automatically be the way forward, rather than say a view of a narrow section of the population.

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

Do you see any nucleus for a 'progressive English Movement' out there?

The Campaign for an English Parliament seems to me to be, quite appropriately, a single-issue cross-party group.

On the right, the English question is increasingly a mainstream issue, but that isn't true on the left or centre-left. No doubt this reflects party political calculations, but i'm not sure those calculations are necessarily valid.

I dont see any - but I dont know - I'm wary of viewing England through the Scottish press - as I know the English media distort Scottish poliics so I suspect the same happens the other way.

I'm hopeful that the break up of the British State could be positive for England - and all other nations involved. For me the republican thread is missing - and essential.