Some interesting thoughts from Dr David Starkey writing in the Telegraph this morning;
One of the most striking things about the England riots is where they did not happen: Yorkshire, the North East, Wales and Scotland. These areas contain some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the country. But they are also characterised by a powerful sense of regional or national identity and difference that cuts across all classes and binds them together. And it is this, I am sure, which has inoculated them against the disease of “gangsta” culture and its attendant, indiscriminate violence.
Scotland, Alex Salmond says smugly, is a “different culture”. It is indeed, since the Scots are allowed – and even encouraged – to be as racist as they please and hate the English with glad abandon.
I do not want a similar licensed xenophobia here. But an English nationalism we must have. And it must be one that includes all our people: white and black and mixed race alike.
I think he is right. England is not allowed to be nationalistic, unlike the Celtic fringe. Why? Is it because the metropolitan elite consider nationalism below them? Or is it perhaps too dangerous a genie to be allowed out of the bottle? I have often speculated upon why the English people allow the Celtic fringe to rip them off so much? Why do they work so hard – and here I am talking about the South-East of England in particular – so that government can take their taxes and redistribute to the welfare class elsewhere who deign work beneath their dignity? Why, for that matter, should they accept that Scottish MP’s can interfere in their affairs at Westminster whilst they cannot influence what happens at Hollyrood?
I have no problems with English Nationalism given the generous nature of the English people. I don’t always agree with them but I do believe they should be allowed to speak on how their wealth is spent, on what their priorities are, and how this is best politically expressed.