Quote:
Originally Posted by Unionist
It is not a bloodline approach at all. I couldn't care less where anyone comes from and, unlike what seems to be the majority of posters here, I am not opposed to immigration and do not argue for tighter controls (other than where national security issues are present). Nor do I consider myself a British nationalist, as I said in my original post.
However, if you are going to make a case for English independence based upon some distinctive English identity, I am entitled to point out that it is very tenuous in demographic and historical terms.
So my point is the opposite to what you seem to be suggesting. 'Bloodlines' are irrelevant and I was pointing out one reason why they are irrelevant in this case, namely that the idea of any 'purity' in demographic terms is ridiculous.
|
With all due respect, I think you should read the final paragraph of my previous post. I believe that the word 'transcend' is of particular importance here!
No, I would not attempt to make a case for English independence (or, indeed, solely a separate English Parliament) based upon some distinctive English identity. However, it was (is?) possible to identify English customs and practices - an English way of going on, if you like - which has been under assault for the last forty or so years.
Had Section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976 not included 'ethnicity' and 'nationality' in its definition of 'racial discrimination', our society would not have had to suffer the imposition of foreign religions, customs and practices to the damaging extent it has! For immigrant women or women of immigrant stock to be walking around our streets masked is not only alien, but a form of sexual discrimination based on the attitudes of the societies from which it has been transplanted! Moreover, not only is it an implicit slight to all males, it is a means of concealing dangers to us.
The effects of all these foreign pressures on us are plain to see, for those who wish to see. Not only is there hesitancy about our own established celebrations - "mustn't offend ethnic minorities y'know" with its implicit "sod the rest of you!" - but the legislation which bears down on us removing our rights under the guise of security because we have accord equality to foreigners regardless of whether we suspect them of malign intent. Habeas corpus has progressively increased to twenty eight days with the prospect of it being increased to forty two days and in due course to ninety days! It does not seem coincidental that such measures are presided over (as was the original Race Relations legislation) by an 'ethnic minority' - then it was a Welshman, now it is Scots!
It seems increasingly inescapable - much as I would wish to escape it - that the UK is more united in theory than in practice and, to the extent that it is united, is attributable to sacrifices imposed on the people of England. What kind of Union is it in which a minority of 8% has its own banking system and bank notes, legal system, education system and has had for well over half a century (more in the case of banking and legal!). Since 1997, one can add transport and health to the list.
As someone sympathetic if not supportive of the UK and being British, I find that I am being increasingly driven into the opposition camp, albeit much against my wishes and long established sentiments. I find it difficult to believe that millions of my English compatriots will not be experiencing similar thoughts and feelings.
-------------------------------