Discussion about this post

User's avatar
England Then And Now's avatar

Nationalism, to me, is the love of your own nation – in my case, England – not about picking sides in every foreign conflict, whether it’s Israel, Ukraine, Russia or anywhere else. We’re not “Zionists”, “Ukrainists”, “Russia‑ists” or anything similar; we’re English, and we love England.

I don’t recognise “British” as a real nation in the same way as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. “British” is primarily a legal and Union label – a status on a passport – whereas those older nations are rooted in people and place. You can be an English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish nationalist; beyond that, you’re really talking about Unionism, not nationalism.

As for labels like “civic nationalist” and “ethno nationalist”, they usually function as lazy slurs slapped on by people who don’t really understand the positions they’re talking about and want to shut down the argument. At that point they might as well call everyone “Nazis” – it’s just as absurd, but easier than actually engaging with what we believe.

Laura Nelson's avatar

This piece reminded me very much of the current Labour party and when it came to power in 2024. I believe one of the reasons that Starmer had no policies on anything is for the very same reason that you espouse, Pete. He had so many competing factions that if and when they split away, Labour would be consigned to the rubbish heap again with a barely manageable Parliamentary cohort. It will happen to Burnham, too. He won't be able to keep Makerfield Leave voters reconciled to the strident Palestinian/Muslim groups. You pays your money and takes your choice.

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?