Why don't the English embrace English nationalism?

Historically the English have been the occupying power and fought wars in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The battle for Irish home rule fought out in the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century resulted in partition and the establishment of the Irish Free State and Ulster which remained part of the Union.

Scotland and Wales have secured devolved powers, although there was little enthusiasm, indeed rejection in referendums, of proposals by the Callaghan government for devolution.  However the nationalist parties in the two nations continued to campaign and the Blair government granted devolution, again after referendums, to the two nations.

There has never been a significant nationalist movement campaigning for devolution for England. The manifest inequity of the current devolution arrangements was referred to in my previous post. Yet, as an issue, it barely appears on the political radar, nor is it an issue which excites very many people living in England.

There is growing concern in England and the rest of the United Kingdom concerning membership of the European Union.  The perception is that powers of the Westminster parliament have been  transferred to the EU by successive governments. There is substantial opposition to continued membership of the EU in the Labour and Conservative parties.  Reclaiming powers from the EU is the major constitutional issue. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had success at European Parliament elections, but has no Westminster MPs.  It is very thin on the ground in local government.

So, do the English lack the stomach for an English parliament?  It took the SNP many years to win seats and to be perceived as a credible political party.  In England the most significant nationalist party is the English Democrats (ED).  The party contested 107 seats at the 2010 general election and has been steadily increasing the number of candidates it puts up at local elections.

But why isn't it doing much better given the low esteem in which the major political parties are held?  Of course, building up an organisation and support takes time, but given the advent of the Internet it is far easier and cheaper to promote a party than when the SNP was struggling in its infancy.

The problem is that the ED is tarred with a racist brush, even though the many moderate members of the party detest racism. The party has suffered for being opposed to multi-culturalism, the failure of which is recognised by the Conservative Party and by elements within the Labour Party. In so doing the party is attacked for being pro-white, racist and fascist.

The ED is in many respects its own worst enemy.  As the BNP disintegrates former members have joined the ED. One perception is that over a period of time the ex-BNP members will take over the ED, or at least become a significant influence within it.  The lesson of Militant and the Labour Party has not been taken on board.

Like many small parties, the ED is rent by personality clashes and massive ego trips which puts off many potential members and has resulted in leakage of existing members. Disunity is not a foundation upon which to build an attractive political edifice.

However, the most significant charge against the ED is that it is racist.  The party's policy documents certainly are not racist if one accepts that  being opposed to multi-culturalism is not racist.  A leading light within the ED has a massive Internet 'footprint' and contributes to a blog entitled: English Passport: The Voice of Democratic English Nationalism.

One post on the blog reads as follows:

Some people attempt to portray the English Democrats and UKIP as ‘civic nationalists’. Yet this term is wholly inaccurate. Although some of their policies might superficially be seen as nationalistic as they are not actually nationalists at all.

A true nation is made up of a community of people distinguished by an ethnic identity; a people belonging to a particular biological type. Culture and values by themselves do not equate to ethnic identity.

Many of the first Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants may have had values and moral codes in common with our society; a strong work ethic, respect for others, strong family ties, discipline and so on. But even so, an African who might share some of our values will still be an African. Even if his speech, manners and behaviour were ‘perfect English’ he would – however impolite it may be to use the term – still be someone of a different race.

Many Blacks or Asians might identify with this country, but that no more makes them English than English children would be Japanese if they happened to be born and raised in that country and immersed in Japanese culture. The reality is that genetically they would remain different.

For a nation is not just a cultural continuity it is a biological continuity as well.

To accept this fact of life doesn’t imply hatred of others, it’s just stating a love of our own people and nation and a desire to see them continue to exist. This desire means our nation is more than just a geographical piece of land with no more meaning or significance than any other. It is a sense of belonging; of shared history and ancestry – a common bloodline; a feeling that we belong to a people who are special and unique.

What’s the point of having an English Parliament if England and the English people are being destroyed?

I was shocked when I read this post and amazed it was even published.

Now, whilst this post castigates the English Democrats for not being nationalists as defined by the author, nevertheless it is surprising, to put it mildly, that there has been no denunciation of these comments by the  leading light within the ED who posts very frequently on this blog. The ED has not published a statement.  It leaves a queasy feeling that there is an undertow of racism within the party.  The ED will not make any political advance unless it deals with this issue. It must rid itself of the racist tag if it is to have any electoral success