A Discussion with Douglas! "ABritishNation ?" Sections numbered for easy cross-referencing, namely, 11[03]means 11th item responding to [3rd item].  :

This discussion, initiated by Douglas [black text], shows successive responses as indented to its initiating comment. TGG response in red text.   Each indent reflects a specific communication and which may have further sections lower in the page.

I was looking through your website, and I have a couple of questions about it: 01. Do you want Cornwall to leave the United Kingdom or merely to have a devolved assembly?   A devolved assembly is fine by me; I don't see why Cornwall needs to be absorbed into England or how it benefits the latter.

04[01]. The simple answer is a devolved assembly within a 'British' State.   I, personally, see the Imperial States as an anachronism and, in my opinion, a Cornish Assembly within a Europe of Regions would be a preferred option.   The major hurdle, which must be overcome before that is even a possibility, is for the Cornish Nation to be recognised by the Imperial British (sic) State.

End of strand

02. If Cornwall is a part of the United Kingdom, why should immigration from the rest of the country (Britain) be blocked any more than in the case of Wales or Scotland?   The people who come to Cornwall are not, I'm sure, deliberately trying to wipe Cornwall's name off the face of the earth - and EU citizens could come into Cornwall quite easily even if she were independent.

05[02]. There is no simple answer to this question other than to recognise that Cornwall has, over the past 40/50 years been subjected to obscene levels of immigrants [principally from England] which would have not been tolerated anywhere else - the graph indicates that this is likely to be a NET figure of over 60% by the 2001 census.

16[05]. But what about freedom of movement within the United Kingdom? Are Scotland and Wales entitled to prevent the English from crossing the borders?   Are the people of the South East (where I live) allowed to prevent the citizens of the remainder of the UK from entering?

22[16]. Freedom of movement when considered in terms of sustainability of populations, culture and economic development is fine but there will always be mechanisms of control.   All controlling functions over the Duchy are external and wilfully indiscriminate.   How would you view a reciprocated arrangement where the population of England was suddenly - over a period of 50 years - increased by 60 per cent by Cornish people [needs a bit of imagination!] who neither respected nor recognised the English identity; who controlled both the State and the Media; and denied the English people access to their history?

28[22]. I wouldn't feel as strongly about this as the average Englishman/woman, since I primarily identify myself with Britain.   However, I hope (!) that I would consider it more of a reason for changing the educational system in England, Wales and Cornwall than a reason for turning England into a "reservation".   I'm all for a less Anglocentric curriculum as it is.   Also - and please, do correct me if I'm wrong - I was under the impression that most people who come to Cornwall to live are elderly.   Therefore, children are not likely to be much of an issue.   The young tend to drift to the South East.

38[28]. Doesn't the fact that you "wouldn't feel as strongly..." immediately imply a conflict in that one identity [the fringe minority] is, at a stroke, expendable to the interests of the other identity [the imperial majority]?   I am not sure how education can compensate for this or what your definition is of a "reservation"?   I was not talking about no immigration at all but - as, specifically, in the case of Cornwall - of excessive immigration.

50[38]. When I said that I "wouldn't feel as strongly", I was just emphasising that I hardly represent the typical Englishman as a half-Scot.   I feel that education would be able to emphasise the value of all the cultures in the United Kingdom and combat ignorance of the rest of that state/nation.

End of strand

39[28]. Whilst I do not have the figures to hand the levels of immigration into the Duchy is spread across all ages but higher in the early and middle age working groups with children.   In the late 60s there was a period when the former G.L.C. were involved in a process of what was termed [not by the Cornish!] as "Granny Dumping".

51[39]. So in that case, the young go to the South East, then go to Cornwall.   Their children go to the South East . . . etc.   It's worth noting that the South East's population is the one growing most as a percentage of the UK (HMSO).

End of strand

29[22]. May I stress that I do *not* oppose the recognition of Cornwall as a nation on an equal basis with England, Scotland and Wales.   For that matter, should Cumbrian people adopt a similar attitude then it is their right and I am willing to support it.   I only oppose the breakup of the United Kingdom.

40[29]. Whether the minority nations are recognised or not, the conflict comes from the State competing for the hearts and minds of the people of those nations at a 'nation' level which makes those identities subservient to an imagined "greater good".   This coercive process is further well illustrated by the politics of establishing a "Westcountry" regional identity within which the Cornish are expendable!   The failure of the State to acknowledge the Cornish Nation means we are not only expendable to British interests but also to English interests.   If the United Kingdom wishes to remain as such, there must be a process which establishes some sincere protocols for an hierarchical structure of identity.   A structure which recognises both the Cornish and English devolved regions - by the people for the people - rather than some arbitrary bureaucratic economic regional monstrosities imposed by the State [Britain] but not of the State [England].

52[40]. The process you mention - the Westcountry identity - sounds to me more like an attempt at persuasion which in the case of Cornwall has been mismanaged enormously than deliberate and conscious coercion.   And, particularly in economic terms, what's the point in an English Parliament?   Another parliament in London is going to seem just as remote to someone in Yorkshire, for example, as Westminister - and the economic problems of the poorer regions would be better dealt with by parliaments that didn't also deal with the rich parts of England.   By the way, did you know that there's a forum at the PM's website?   You might try making the point about the Cornish nation there - the site claims that the gov't read them all.   It's at "http://www.pm.gov.uk/default.asp?PageID=46".

End of strand

23[16]. The South East of England is the area where all mechanisms of control have, hitherto, resided and which has tended to look after itself.   That is gradually changing with internal UK devolution and a strengthening European Union and which will see, I would imagine, a declining population as a consequence of financial support/control for other areas of the UK.   It is this political development which will force a review of identities and associations and as the power of Westminster declines [if done properly and honestly, it will have very little to do!] it will eventually become perceived as an 'unnecessary tier' of government and the newly devolved regions will work directly to an elected and representative European Parliament.

30[23]. The idea that devolution will deprive Westminister of a role is, to me, rather like saying that the US, Canadian, Australian and Swiss Federal Governments and Parliaments/Congresses have little part to play in the respective states.   Who will coordinate central, foreign and defence policy?   The European Parliament is, to my mind, a joke.   I did a bit of research into this, and I found that about 40 million people in Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain were not represented in the EP due to under-representation!   45 million people have been created in the ten remaining states due to over-representation.   "Representative" is a misnomer here.   Personally, I'd like a two-house arrangement - one representative of the true population, and one with equal representation for all 15 states - both PR-elected.

41[30]. Once power is truly devolved to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom the only powers that will eventually remain with Westminster will be - in simplistic terms - a strategic secretariat overseeing the system and acting as an intermediary with the European levels of administration [may take a hundred years but...].   Once the domestic government of the regions is well established, the role of Westminster will be duplicating that of, say, Brussels and there will be pressure to establish a flatter, leaner structure.   The United Kingdom, unlike the US, Canada et al., has elected to become part of a larger organisation.   As long as representation and subsidiarity are reflected in the domestic governments of the devolved assemblies, the larger, strategic, level becomes less of an issue.   I see little difference between the pros and cons for a union of British nations or a union of European nations in that if it is OK for one it is equally OK for the other.

53[41]. After devolution, the United Kingdom Parliament will still be responsible for foreign and defence policy outside of the EU and for all UK-wide issue.   Any European union of nations would have to acknowledge the member-states - there would be enough trouble getting them to become states in a USE without subdividing them.   To be honest, I don't think there's much enthusiasm for the idea anywhere in Europe anyway.

End of strand

06[02]. The English Establishment has, over the past 100 years, wilfully denied the Cornish people free access to all aspects of Cornish political history and now the democratic process [by the English for the English!] will be used to reinforce the rights of an immigrant majority over the marginalised Cornish people.   It is a typical example of English imperial colonisation and asset stripping of a dependent territory which at worst is a sophisticated form of cultural genocide and a covert ethnic cleansing of Cornwall brought about by the policies of an external, unsympathetic administration. 07[02]. Whether or not the end results reflect, in some way, a perceived motivation for formulating such policies, such policies are clearly wrong for the Cornish people and Cornish Rights and what is urgently needed is a complete moratorium on all such policies and for this to be examined by an independent non-British commission. 08[02]. I would ask you to re-read Article 16 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities [see Cornish Nation/Home Office - 2 page] for a basic recognition for such controls.   Not to apply protection for the Cornish people challenges the whole concept of why any immigrant policy needs to exist anywhere.

17[08]. To be honest, I think the UK could easily sustain more immigrants and indeed will eventually need to import more as the population declines.

End of strand

03. Why is Britain not a nation?   To quote Norman Davies, I would uphold "the law of multiple identities".   People can have several identities at once - and different nations (as opposed to countries) can coexist.   No Cornishman (or woman) need feel less Cornish for being British - and it's the same for the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish.   The United Kingdom is a nation containing four/five (does Northern Ireland really count?) nations within it.   There is a substantial body of people who identify with Britain - and most English people, according to recent polls, feel just as British as English (sadly, many say English when they mean British - it irritates me too as I'm half-Scottish!).   I have no problem with being British (primarily), English, Scottish and European - why can you (no offence) not be British and Cornish?

09[03]. Multiple identities are as natural as life itself but like some superficial definitions of multiculturalism means quite the opposite to what is implied and which is, in fact, the antithesis of identity unless placed in some form of hierarchical, non-parallel, structure.   Such usage is often a soft option to avoid addressing the problems which the abuse of words, like nation - much loved by State and Media! - will inevitably generate.   Perhaps the real test of a true identity is when we are forced to choose from all perceived meaningful options and superficiality, finally, has to be purged? 10[03]. The word 'nation' is a much more user-friendly word than 'State' and is preferred by the imperialist majority mentality because it reflects what they see as 'their nation' and which just happens to lead, as you have identified, to an indiscriminate and ambiguous synonymy between what is 'their nation' and 'the State'.   We are citizens of a multinational State!   Why should that pose a problem of identity which imposes some need to erroneously redefine it as a nation?

18[10]. The UK started out as a state only.   However, I believe that a "British nation" was formed gradually throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - Linda Colley's "Britons" is very good on this topic.   This means that, rather than having a British state and five nations in the UK, we have the British state and the British nation superimposed upon five other, older nations.   The means by which it initially did so - the imperial universe, commercial hegemony, Protestantism, defence of liberty against "the Other", etc. - have by and large lost their substance, and so the "historic nations" are becoming more significant again.   To return to immigrants - "there must be a fresh way of seeing Britain, and a new way of being British".   Some of the old still has its pull, and the "British nation" is still there - and it is perfectly capable of coexisting with the English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Irish/Ulster nations.

24[18]. State is an entity which encompasses a legally constituted government whereas a Nation is a self-identifying group of people based on various attributes of nationhood and which in the absence of a legal government is not a State.   A Nation with a legal government may properly be called a Nation-State.   This latter term is misrepresentative when applied to the Imperial States [for example, Britain] because it presumes, and even pre-empts, that an insidious process of assimilation of minority nations is complete.   Whilst perceptions certainly exist in the minds of many individuals of a modern British Nation - particularly now it is receiving such a high political PR campaign - this will, when analysed, be shown to be just a euphemism for the English Nation.   It seems to me to be illogical to redefine being a citizen of a higher level legal political grouping [multinational State] as if it were some meaningful cultural group [Nation] because they are functionally different entities.   Perhaps a better model for Britain would be, say, Scandinavia?

31[24]. Again, people can consider themselves British, European *and* English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish etc.   I wouldn't call Britain a "nation-state" either - the same *unchallenged* first indentity which exists in Germany or in France (excepting some fringe areas) is lacking.   No unified educational system or legal system, no unified church or lack thereof - the structures of a nation-state are not there.   However, that does not mean that a British nation cannot and/or does not *coexist* with the other nations within the United Kingdom's borders.

42[31]. If there is, as you say, a British Nation and we both agree that there is a de facto British State then I would have thought that that would have provided the essential ingredients for a British Nation-State.   I fail to see why the lack of unified attributes negates one but is unnecessary of consideration in determining the other?   I see the make-up of European Imperial States as on a par with Britain and the constituent peoples within the states as representing the 100 true nations of Europe.   Whilst agreeing that people have a right to consider themselves as being a member of a particular territorial group [or groups], I would question the objectivity of the membership and what would determine the substance and function of the identity?

54[42]. As I understand it, a nation-state requires a) an overriding, unrivalled national identity and b) unified legal and educational systems.   The United Kingdom is more complex than that, with strong identities in its constituent parts.   It has three legal and educational systems - and in the latter, there are special provisions for some.   The British nation does not comprise all the citizens of the United Kingdom; rather, it is made of those who choose to be British.

End of strand

32[24]. I admit I'm one of those people you mention - I believe in a British nation, and it is my first loyalty.   That doesn't mean I can't feel loyal to England, Scotland, Wales and Europe.   I do believe that, in the eighteenth century, war with enemies on the Continent, Protestantism, a sense of liberty, commerce and empire forged a British nation.   War with France, Germany and co. has in all likelihood ceased to be a proposition for the foreseeable future, Roman Catholicism commands the largest number of active adherents nowadays, Britain's Parliament is the most undemocratic national assembly in the developed world, Britain is a mediocre economy (per capita) and empire is gone; in that sense, I and my kind are a historical accident. 33[24]. I'm not saying that the above-mentioned changes are bad (excepting our economic decline and our now relatively undemocratic Parliament), but the fact is that a British nation *was* forged due to these factors and that now it is somewhat stranded.   It needs to be redefined, but that does not mean it doesn't exist or that it is not entitled to be acknowledged.   As I said before, immigrants have seen into the heart of the matter; "there must be a fresh way of seeing Britain, and a new way of being British".   There are still historical achievements which all of Britain can take pride in - and potential national cement.   1940 comes to mind for a national myth. 34[24]. As for the British nation being a euphemism for the English nation - firstly, what's wrong with Englishness?   Imperialism was undertaken by everyone in the British Isles (particularly the Scots), and England's traditions have much that is admirable.   Secondly, the fact is that people have identified themselves (and still do) with Britain and the British nation all over the United Kingdom.   It's a bit like the Holland/Netherlands issue; the capitals are in Holland (plus Rotterdam) and it's probably the largest province, but you don't deny a "Dutch nation" because we confuse "Holland" with "the Netherlands", do you?

End of strand

11[03]. As an individual my nationality is 'Cornish' but my nationality cannot be 'British' because there is no such identity which can exist - ignoring for the moment its insincerity! - without the inexorable pressure of the majority supplanting the minority - viz. Imperialism!   I have no problem with being 'British' as a generic term for being 'a citizen of the State' but my nationality is, and can only be, 'Cornish'.   At another level, I have no problem at all with being European whether this be a federation, confederation or some other entity - other than nation.

19[11]. Again, any United States of Europe, European Federation or whatever would start out as a state only.   But surely a "European nation" would grow up.   A founding myth? Ancient heritage, tolerant Rome and therefore cosmopolitan society, the idea of countries uniting for peace in the aftermath of the most destructive war the world has ever known and possibly the phoenix rising again metaphor . . .

25[19]. The concept of a European Federation - or perhaps a Confederation of European Nations? - is starting out from an entirely different base to the regrettable rise, through force and domination, of the Imperial States.   There is now something called democracy; respect for human rights; respect for cultural differences - although the Cornish are still waiting for these wonders to reach them! - which will modify and constrain such a large political grouping with no one cultural group being in the position of absolute power.   Nationality can only be a 'cultural' identity and, as such, is an expression of who you are and where you come from.   Being a citizen of any multinational grouping signifies an alliance for political purposes and has nothing to with culture nor, in my opinion, identity.

35[24-25]. I think Norman Davies is worth citing here.   Any multinational state which has a "nation" attached has two kinds of nationalism; "civic" nationalism, originally a state-backed enterprise (and I suppose they still do support it) and in the UK British nationalism; and "popular" nationalism, an enterprise without state support - the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish/Ulster and Cornish nations.   The alignments get weaker and stronger with circumstances, but they all exist.   Certain groups support Britishness, and others don't.   In the mid- to late-eighteenth century, merchants, soldiers and the establishment supported a British nation, whereas the "common" folk scarcely even thought of their county; nowadays, immigrants tend to support Britain, as do expatriates (in my experience; or at least when compelled to make a difference between "English" and "British", plump for "English") and many others.   Some nationalists (particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland) support the "popular" nations.   Matters were ever thus.   So yes, I believe that multinational groupings can and do have an effect on identity; they often create new nations of their own.

43[32-35]. I accept that you believe sincerely in a British nation and that you are one of many.   I do not accept that it was as a consequence of a "kind of historical accident".   It is because, in my opinion, there was a deliberate Imperial English attempt to absorb the British Isles into a greater English State [the Island of England].   This was thwarted and replaced by the new thrust of a 'British' Empire by the unification of the crowns of England and Scotland in 1707 - after a hundred years of sharing a king.   Whilst the name of the Empire changed nothing else did apart from the participation of other members of the Union and as the poet in Punch observed, "Britain strictly keeps its name, It's called England just the same.". 44[32-35]. It would have been bizarre if none of the British agenda had rubbed off on some.   I do not believe that any period since 1707 has forged a British nation because there is too much evidence to show that it has always been continuously construed principally as still 'of England' by the majority of people both here and abroad and with a matching symbolism [e.g. use of 'Anglo-' hybrids? and spontaneous synonymy of the principal epithets].   None of which is denied by the State or its agencies - hence my use of the word euphemism.   There is, of course, nothing wrong with Englishness as long as there is a genuine understanding of what that means.   The problem with the British, alias English, Empire is that it has engendered confused perceptions of identity to the point that genuine people like yourself identify with the greater identity.   You are therefore, the children of the Empire.

55[43-44]. When I called myself and my kind a "historical accident", I didn't mean it in the sense that you thought.   I meant that the political, social and economic conditions which have gone have still left a British nation behind - but it has left them stranded.   I meant that I am the leftover of bygone circumstances, unless we can redefine ourselves.   I think I have done this for myself - but the British national community as a whole doesn't seem to have done the same yet.   There is an interesting essay ("http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/hfien/scots.dir/scothisunion.html") on the Act of Union here.   As I said before, the commercial and imperial hegemony, the work ethic and the inventiveness which in the nineteenth century commerce was partially based on which *initially* forged a British nation had a great deal to do with the Scots.   I think that a British nation was forged by people from all over Great Britain - not just the English, as James Watt might tell us - a British patriot and a Scottish patriot simultaneously, just to prove my point!   The Empire was only one of the pillars of the British nation.   With reference to the point about confused identities, surely the crucial thing in a nation is whether people identify with it?   That is what creates a nation.

End of strand

45[32-35]. Consideration of the influences of respective populations and geographical areas on perceptions - coupled with the subjectivity of identity - can only lead to a conclusion that the Celtic Periphery, whilst actively participating in the new British Empire, would have been seriously marginalised when it came down to PR and presentation - and, indeed, promotion - during the past three hundred years.   So profound was its promotion that we see the Boer War, circa 1900, referred to today as, literally, the "Anglo-Boer War" which has also been identified as the beginning of the end of the "British Empire".

56[45]. It's worth remembering that the Prime Minister at the end of the Boer War was a Scot (or at least a little after it).

End of strand

26[19]. For this reason I am Cornish first and phrases like British, even European, are used in a similar manner to the ultimate non-identity of 'member of the human race'.   This is not to denigrate any of these other epithets but only to reinforce that I am 'Cornish' by choice and deed, I am British or European when cultural identity is not an issue, and I am, hopefully, a member of the human race by default.   This formula is, I am sure, also true for others.

36[26]. Not in my case, anyway.   I am firstly British, secondly European, English, Scottish and Welsh (equally).   Obviously, in a country which started off as a state without a nation attached there will always be different attitudes.   Both of our attitudes are shared by millions (replacing "Cornish" with the appropriate adjective).

End of strand

27[19]. Thank you for such an interesting discussion and for the consent for me to post it to the website.   These are genuine issues which need to be in open discussion with tolerance and understanding - can be an emotive issue, sadly but understandably! - and I believe that there is a certain inertia in how events will eventually pan out [winning of hearts and minds - within a level playing field?].

37[27]. I have to admit it's somewhat emotive for me.   I am patriotic about Britain - and I feel that its very multinationalism, an indescribably rich mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, Irish, Cumbrian (possibly?), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and many others, ought to be a strength.   My ideal British nation would encourage diversity and peaceful coexistence between itself and these other nations.   The British nation need not be imperialistic - depending on the tradition you take, it can be very different.

46[36-37]. I respect and support the need for your identity to be accommodated, however that may be achieved and progress, hopefully, is all about compromise.   I am intrigued, however, in how you would describe the substance and function of each of your five identities?   How, for instance, would you begin to protect whichever one is threatened especially if threatened by one of the others?   Where would loyalties be compromised?

57[46]. Which identities would I protect first?   Firstly, I would protect my Britishness.   Secondly, I would try to reconcile my Englishness, Scottishness, Welshness and Europeanness.   Fortunately, I believe that the interests of all these identities coincide - I feel that a federal UK within Europe is the best way to go.   My European identity also has to be reconciled with my British one - I don't feel that there's any threat from the EU, however, so that's fine by me. 58[46]. My English, Scottish and Welsh identities are primarily genetic - a support to my British identity, which can encompass all of this and more beside.   My European identity stems from a sense of fellowship with other European peoples.

End of strand

47[36-37]. Identity for me is about culture - how I express who I am and where I come from - and I see nothing that inspires me to consider a British identity as anything culturally meaningful.   The 'rich mixture' that you refer to is fine and nice to see and to appreciate but it is someone else's culture which expresses their own self-identity with place.   How would you express your 'British nationality' through a self-identifying cultural activity which is not 'of some place else'? 48[36-37]. Unless a British State is the servant of the nations within it, I believe it can only be imperialistic.

59[47-48]. I believe that the British identity can and should be able to include all the cultures within it - whether they be English, Cornish or Bangladeshi.   The inclusiveness of Britishness is one of its greatest characteristics.

End of strand

49[36-37]. Whilst I am sure we could debate this for a long time to come, I feel that most of the issues have been covered one way or another.   I must not lose sight of the fact that this is a site dedicated to Cornish Rights and not a British Nation.   Perhaps you will accept the opportunity -if you choose to reply? - to add a summary of your discussion as a means of winding up the correspondence.   Please believe me when I say that I fully understand the position that you are in and I am sure that you will continue to defend it eloquently.   I only hope that I can be as eloquent in my task?

60[49]. I have enjoyed this correspondence very much.   It's not often I find someone who is willing to let me talk myself out! :) 61[49]. As you have asked me for a summary - I believe that there is a British nation, which can coexist with all the other nations within the United Kingdom's borders and which was forged by all constituent parts of the UK.   I feel that the original pillars of this British nation have by and large disappeared, resulting in a weakening of its pull.   This weakening has given rise to the belief that there is no British nation at all - and redefinition is needed, so that it can have a new lease of life.   However, that doesn't mean it isn't there - and the idea of confused identities is irrelevant; a nation's foundation is what people think, not what is. 62[49]. Again, I have enjoyed arguing (oops, debating!) with you very much.

63[50-62]. Rather than respond to the latest responses individually, I shall conclude this final strand with a summary against the notion of a British Nation: 64[50-62]. I acknowledge that the concept of a British Nation exists in the minds of many individuals and is, de facto, a very real concept.   I would, however, suggest that this is a perception born out of a myth and, like the 'Santa Zone' is a deception to hide the inevitable truth of a disparate partnership which inexorably favours the majority partner - in truth, an Imperial Relationship!   I believe that the confused identities that one witnesses, daily, is very relevant because it shows that the process of homogenisation has failed. 65[50-62]. It failed because, to quote Bulpitt ("Territory and Power in the United Kingdom" - 1983: "... the English have never taken the Union seriously ... unwilling to treat territorial politics seriously .. these matters have posed an awkward dilemma for the centre: how to run a territorial Union not taken seriously by this peculiar dominant section" 66[50-62]. For me a national identity can only be a cultural identity whereas a British identity is no more than an acknowledgement of a political alliance of historic nations.  The Imperial aspirations of the Union has engendered a complex relationship between the peoples of the 'Empire' wherever it extended its powers.   The rationalisation of this into some pseudo nation is, in my opinion, fallacious and can only result in conflict with historic nationalities. 67[50-62]. To identify with 'the State' whether this be Britain or Europe imposes no cultural requirement.   The existence of a myriad of world ethnic cultures within the State directly challenges one's ability to identify culturally 'with place' at the same time as we see unchallenged symbolism to equate that place to 'England'. 68[50-62]. The subject is one that needs a much greater debate because there are, in my opinion, not many people out there who understand the topic or who are entirely superficial in discerning the basic meanings and distinctions between 'English' and 'British'.   From a Cornish perspective I see no future for a political alliance with - to give it its correct title - the United Kingdom.   Better for us to seek a political alliance with a Europe of a 100 true nations. 69[50-62]. I have also enjoyed the exchange and wish that we could continue but it takes me away from my principal objectives.   Perhaps we may compare points again some time in the future?

End of strand

12[03]. Because I am, on many occasions, denied the right to say 'Cornish', I am forced to use the term 'British' which, because of its insincerity, I do under duress!   I do not even get this choice if using some Internet Services but I am coerced into stating my address as country = 'England' - something I find offensive and which denies me, as a Cornishman, my rights!.

20[12]. Within the United Kingdom, I fully agree that "Cornwall" should be there with "England" and co.   I think, however, that "United Kingdom" should be the option given first with the five "historic nations" next - used in a similar fashion to the states of America or provinces of Canada.

End of strand

13[03]. A national identity can only come from an identification with a territory as a self-identifying group, namely, Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, English .   To many people - invariably immigrants to that territory - this historic identity is, quite incorrectly, seen as exclusive rather than inclusive and hence the higher hierarchical level of 'British' is seen as a way out of this perceived dilemma or, as in the case of Cornwall, the unique national epithet 'Cornish' is insidiously replaced by its noun which treats me as a 'Cornwall man'.   If the State had instead overtly imposed the name of 'England' on minority nations of the State - and got away with it! - would such a dilemma still be perceived?

21[13]. Even so, it is interesting that racial minorities tend to find it easier to identify with Britain than England, Scotland &co.

End of strand

14[03]. The abused term 'British' must be construed as a manipulative non-identifying epithet.   In much the same way we see the amorphous terms 'the Westcountry' or 'the Southwest' being used in Cornwall as the political means to manipulate and redefine territorial relationships. Clearly another mechanism of cultural genocide. 15[03]. I hope that the above provides some sort of answers for you?   You pose significant questions which can only be touched on briefly.   I would, however, be only too delighted to expand on anything which you feel needs further discussion.   Thanks once again for taking the time and trouble to communicate with me.

End of strand

Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page