UK Politics Thread IX: Try turning the UK off and on again.

[The Nihilistic view]

Is it really that far gone that the idea of a unionist that feels just British and nothing else is an alien concept even here. I've never said anything else but people keep trying to put me in the wrong pigeonhole as if they struggle to comprehend that somebody might not subscribe to a minor national identity alongside or instead of a british one.

Considering that you didn't say the Welsh were just British, but rather a subset of England, it seems like you have a loyalty to a particular home country instead of the union as a whole.

A statement of technical historical fact isn't an opinion.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, we let you leave; or let 81.25% of your counties leave, anyway.

Though only after the Conservative Party - backed by Liberal Unionists - spent the best part of 30 years doing their best to wreck Gladstone's attempts to negotiate a home rule compromise that might, just possibly, have kept Ireland in the United Kingdom; or at least might have offered a better opportunity to negotiate a route to independence that wouldn't have involved civil war and partition. It's incredibly depressing to see the same historic themes recur, even if the specific context is different.

It's a bit like what Talleyrand allegedly said about the Bourbons learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

That said, notwithstanding radical SNP MSP attempts to argue that Scotland should just declare independence without a referendum, because the First Dáil didn't bother with a referendum in 1919 (no, but then it did lead to a fairly nasty civil war), or occasional English attempts to argue that any parts of Scotland that don't vote for independence in a second referendum should be allowed to stay in the UK (and how did that end up working out for Northern Ireland?), I think we should manage to avoid the worst mistakes of 1886-1921 this time around; if (stressing the conditional) any part of the current UK were to assert its right to leave.

You'd like to think so, anyway.

(emphasis mine)

Wait, parts of the UK have the right to leave? I mean, I know about NI, the right to leave is written inside the Good Friday Agreement. But can Wales leave? Like, is there currently a legal document that says under which circumstances it can leave?

A minor misunderstanding of language nuance, perhaps.

There is no formal written document that outlines a process of secession from the UK.

However, the phrase 'were to assert its right to leave' wasn't supposed to suggest that such a document existed, but rather that a component of the UK might choose to assert that it has a right to leave - irrespective of the specific legal mechanisms in place.

Is it really that far gone that the idea of a unionist that feels just British and nothing else is an alien concept even here. I've never said anything else but people keep trying to put me in the wrong pigeonhole as if they struggle to comprehend that somebody might not subscribe to a minor national identity alongside or instead of a british one.

The blissful uncomprehending irony of this post....

Many of us were quite happy being European first, British second, and only then identify ourselves as Scottish, English, or Welsh last. It's the actions of the party that you profess to support that are increasingly leading to the conflation of Britishness with English nationalism, and are forcing us to choose.

You really don't see that, do you?

[Old Tyrannia]

Everyone arguing whether Wales is England or not and all I'm thinking is "People from Cardiff sound English. I don't think they identify as English."

I don't think anyone is really arguing that Wales is part of England, except Nihil, and even then he's just being pedantic over a historical technicality. Wales was officially annexed into the Kingdom of England centuries ago, but being part of the Kingdom of England whilst it existed does not make it part of the country of England as traditionally and customarily defined.

[The Nihilistic view]

(emphasis mine)

Wait, parts of the UK have the right to leave? I mean, I know about NI, the right to leave is written inside the Good Friday Agreement. But can Wales leave? Like, is there currently a legal document that says under which circumstances it can leave?

A minor misunderstanding of language nuance, perhaps.

There is no formal written document that outlines a process of secession from the UK.

However, the phrase 'were to assert its right to leave' wasn't supposed to suggest that such a document existed, but rather that a component of the UK might choose to assert that it has a right to leave - irrespective of the specific legal mechanisms in place.

Is it really that far gone that the idea of a unionist that feels just British and nothing else is an alien concept even here. I've never said anything else but people keep trying to put me in the wrong pigeonhole as if they struggle to comprehend that somebody might not subscribe to a minor national identity alongside or instead of a british one.

The blissful uncomprehending irony of this post....

Many of us were quite happy being European first, British second, and only then identify ourselves as Scottish, English, or Welsh last. It's the actions of the party that you profess to support that are increasingly leading to the conflation of Britishness with English nationalism, and are forcing us to choose.

You really don't see that, do you?

That's not irony my dear fellow. I don't go around saying you are something you aren't like when people conflate my identity with English nationalism. England isn't anymore of a distinct country than Wales. That's the difference you see, ironic would be thinking that everybody that was remain only considered themselves European or some other combination and ignoring they might in some part feel British. Recognising that Brexit was in a large part an identity contest doesn't mean you turn it into an either or situation.

There are four levels of identity broadly speaking any indervidual could feel in the UK. British (and or another nationality of family heritage), the four countries, regional and European. All four or any combination of the four.

Anyway you don't have to choose unless you bind up your European identity with the EU. I don't belive you should do that, European identity has existed long before the EU. Celebrate colective European culture, achievements etc whatever you consider makes you European outside the EU. That's doesn't have to combine with a political entity like the EU. I know the EU wants to make itself thee European culture and makes moves all the time to harmogenise stuff and supplant national cultures but it doesn't have to be that way. There is beauty in all the European cultures and its a shame about the over homogenisation brought about by the EU in recent years. It's those individual cultures collectively that make up Europe not the attempts by eurocrats to supplant everything like a 19th century colonial power.

I don’t know if this will surprise you or not but if I had to rank everything I would put European above English. I don't believe being European has to be about support for the EU.

Edit: I would be interested to know what it is that makes up your feelings of being European. It would be intresting to compare against why I mainly feel British.

[Dakini]

Amazing. So Scotland isn't doing better, it's just been ahead of England for the last couple of days and is now more than a day ahead, seeming to pull further ahead still it's because it's a "rounding error". When they opened vaccination to everyone 18+ a few weeks ago and England just opened vaccines to 25+ this week, I'm sure this is also a mistake because Scotland surely can't do anything right.

Again, Scotland also prioritised vulnerable groups and back in January, the news was all about how Scotland was so slow rolling out the vaccine while the Scottish government focused on vaccinating people in care homes which is slower work than vaccinating people who aren't in care homes. The result is that Scotland finished vaccinating people in care homes and could move on to vaccinating the general community, which goes much faster.

I have no fucking clue what you're on about, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the content of my post.

I'm confused then. What did you mean by all of the statements here?

Scotland is, numbers wise, a rounding error, so their limited prioritisation compared to England Is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Because you seem to suggest that Scotland being ahead of England on vaccinations is a rounding error instead of Scotland giving more vaccines per capita and that Scotland did not prioritise vulnerable groups as much as England (even though they definitely prioritised the most vulnerable more, which is why the initial vaccine rollout was slower in Scotland than in England).

Please explain what you meant since you seem to think that my understanding of the words you wrote is incorrect.

[Salandriagado]

I have no fucking clue what you're on about, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the content of my post.

I'm confused then. What did you mean by all of the statements here?

Scotland is, numbers wise, a rounding error, so their limited prioritisation compared to England Is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Because you seem to suggest that Scotland being ahead of England on vaccinations is a rounding error instead of Scotland giving more vaccines per capita and that Scotland did not prioritise vulnerable groups as much as England (even though they definitely prioritised the most vulnerable more, which is why the initial vaccine rollout was slower in Scotland than in England).

Please explain what you meant since you seem to think that my understanding of the words you wrote is incorrect.

That is not even remotely what I said in any way, shape, or form. Going back and actually reading the context would likely help your understanding.

[Dakini]

I'm confused then. What did you mean by all of the statements here?



Because you seem to suggest that Scotland being ahead of England on vaccinations is a rounding error instead of Scotland giving more vaccines per capita and that Scotland did not prioritise vulnerable groups as much as England (even though they definitely prioritised the most vulnerable more, which is why the initial vaccine rollout was slower in Scotland than in England).

Please explain what you meant since you seem to think that my understanding of the words you wrote is incorrect.

That is not even remotely what I said in any way, shape, or form. Going back and actually reading the context would likely help your understanding.

I quoted you. I was responding to that sentence. Please explain what you meant by it since apparently I got it entirely wrong and that's not remotely what you said, even though I quoted your post.

[Old Tyrannia]

A minor misunderstanding of language nuance, perhaps.

There is no formal written document that outlines a process of secession from the UK.

However, the phrase 'were to assert its right to leave' wasn't supposed to suggest that such a document existed, but rather that a component of the UK might choose to assert that it has a right to leave - irrespective of the specific legal mechanisms in place.





The blissful uncomprehending irony of this post....

Many of us were quite happy being European first, British second, and only then identify ourselves as Scottish, English, or Welsh last. It's the actions of the party that you profess to support that are increasingly leading to the conflation of Britishness with English nationalism, and are forcing us to choose.

You really don't see that, do you?

That's not irony my dear fellow. I don't go around saying you are something you aren't like when people conflate my identity with English nationalism. England isn't anymore of a distinct country than Wales. That's the difference you see, ironic would be thinking that everybody that was remain only considered themselves European or some other combination and ignoring they might in some part feel British. Recognising that Brexit was in a large part an identity contest doesn't mean you turn it into an either or situation.

There are four levels of identity broadly speaking any indervidual could feel in the UK. British (and or another nationality of family heritage), the four countries, regional and European. All four or any combination of the four.

Anyway you don't have to choose unless you bind up your European identity with the EU. I don't belive you should do that, European identity has existed long before the EU. Celebrate colective European culture, achievements etc whatever you consider makes you European outside the EU. That's doesn't have to combine with a political entity like the EU. I know the EU wants to make itself thee European culture and makes moves all the time to harmogenise stuff and supplant national cultures but it doesn't have to be that way. There is beauty in all the European cultures and its a shame about the over homogenisation brought about by the EU in recent years. It's those individual cultures collectively that make up Europe not the attempts by eurocrats to supplant everything like a 19th century colonial power.

I don’t know if this will surprise you or not but if I had to rank everything I would put European above English. I don't believe being European has to be about support for the EU.

Edit: I would be interested to know what it is that makes up your feelings of being European. It would be intresting to compare against why I mainly feel British.

I guess I might be the only person here who identifies primarily as English and secondarily as British. I didn't really feel that way a few years ago, but I feel like the differences between the home nations have sharpened of late (in part because of Brexit, but even before that with devolution and the rise of Scottish nationalism as a major political force). I am still a unionist, though. I don't feel European in any sense beyond the strictly geographical and I find it hard to understand why anyone would.

[The Nihilistic view]

Scotland's Andy Murray when he loses

Britain's Andy Murray when he wins

Or.... whatever that joke is about him.

Andy Murray is always Scottish to me after his comments about 15 years ago. I grew up supporting any British nation whenever a sporting contest was on. It was a sad day when I realised that people of the various nations can't all do that and support their fellow Brits.

I've tried not supporting one of the other countries before because of that, but I just can't do it. My heart always pulls me back. With Euro 2016 I tried not supporting Wales after England went out but I just couldn't not do it. I was just brought up to be behind all four nations. Andy Murray is just my exception that proves the rule. To be perfectly honest I'd include the Ireland in that as well, I was gutted with the French handball bollocks a while back.

It's all down to what he has said in the past with Andy Murray, if he hadn't had said what he said about England I'm sure he would be universally loved all the time.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Scotland's Andy Murray when he loses

Britain's Andy Murray when he wins

Or.... whatever that joke is about him.

Andy Murray is always Scottish to me after his comments about 15 years ago. I grew up supporting any British nation whenever a sporting contest was on. It was a sad day when I realised that people of the various nations can't all do that and support their fellow Brits.

I've tried not supporting one of the other countries before because of that, but I just can't do it. My heart always pulls me back. With Euro 2016 I tried not supporting Wales after England went out but I just couldn't not do it. I was just brought up to be behind all four nations. Andy Murray is just my exception that proves the rule. To be perfectly honest I'd include the Ireland in that as well, I was gutted with the French handball bollocks a while back.

It's all down to what he has said in the past with Andy Murray, if he hadn't had said what he said about England I'm sure he would be universally loved all the time.

So you dislike Murray over comments he made in jest over 15 years ago?

That's uh... that's odd.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I'm starting to believe this endless stream of tedious Royal rows is just manufactured to keep them on the front pages so they seem vaguely relevant. Who really gives a flying fuck what they call their children?

[The Huskar Social Union]

So it technically happened in the Republic but because Sinn Fein is an all island party i thought i would mention it here: Party members disguised themselves as workers for a non existent polling company to secretly canvass their supporters before and during elections. They were provided with with fake badges and instructions on how to pass themselves off as poll workers to collect data on their voters.

"Sinn Féin provided party members with fake ID badges and instructions on how to misrepresent themselves as pollsters to survey households before and during elections. An internal training manual reveals how activists were given detailed instructions on how to pose as researchers working for a polling company to covertly question voters. The 77-page document set out how Sinn Féin members should ask voters about their intentions under the guise of the “Irish Market Research Agency” (IMRA), which does not exist.

The Irish Independent asked the other political parties whether their members had ever posed as market researchers to collect information on voters. Fianna Fáil said it was “not aware” of its members doing so and the Labour Party said covert polling had not been done with the “knowledge or with the sanction” of party headquarters.

Fine Gael said the majority of polling it used was carried out by private research companies.

However, a spokesperson added: “Occasionally, polling would have been carried out by the organisation locally without direct supervision of headquarters.” The Social Democrats and People Before Profit said they had not posed as market researchers. Sinn Féin’s “Election Toolkit Dublin 2015” included sample ballot papers featuring an IMRA logo along with a page of printable ‘authorisation’ badges for the fake opinion poll firm.

The ID badges falsely describe IMRA as an “independent organisation that is dedicated to the compiling of accurate, political and social information in Ireland”.

“Properly designed and implemented opinion polling can be a very accurate and a useful intelligence tool for those running the political strategy side of the election campaign,” the document said.

In reference to real opinion poll companies, it added: “You are not RED C or Millward Brown and you don’t need to be so keep it simple.” The election manual gave Sinn Féin members detailed instructions on how research should be conducted when posing as the fake research firm. These included getting a clipboard, some sample ballots and an ID badge for the fake polling company. Sinn Féin canvassers were told to tell people they surveyed that they are “casually employed” by IMRA for one day only. They were to say the non-existent polling company ws based in Dublin. The information collated from the face-to-face surveys of voters was broken down by electoral divisions and entered in spreadsheets for analysis.

The election manual said the party was “of the view that the greater the amount of electoral, political and demographic data available to us, then the greater the opportunity there is for Sinn Féin to shape and mould its message to the electorate”. “It gives us the opportunity to micro-message to several sectors of our electorate, to adopt our capacity for best effect, and it allows us to expose our opponents in their own backyard,” it added. The manual said Sinn Féin used this type of “organised opinion polling” in several election campaigns since 2010 and most were “well within the margin of error when it came to results”. It said opinion polling by Sinn Féin activists was carried out ahead of the Donegal South West by-election in 2010 and 36pc of the people surveyed said they would vote for Pearse Doherty. Mr Doherty, now Sinn Fein deputy leader, got just under 40pc of the vote after ballots were counted. Ahead of the 2011 general election, Sinn Féin members carried out a covert opinion poll of Louth that found 25pc of people saying they would vote for Gerry Adams two weeks before polling day.

The former party leader got almost 22pc of the vote on election day. In response to queries about the fake polling company, a Sinn Féin spokesperson said: “All parties conduct private local opinion polling. The document you are referring to is many years old and these days we generally use professional companies for this service.” Sinn Féin said the information it collected from the opinion poll was anonymous and not entered into the party’s controversial voter database, the Abú system. The party did not respond to questions asking whether it believed it was ethical for its members to misrepresent themselves as workers from a research firm when knocking on doors and engaging with voters."

Copy and pasted the article since its a pay walled article.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have both been revealed to have done this too btw just as a further comment to my original one.

But this is more a republic story so i wont bring it up again as it doesnt pertain to this thread.

[Vassenor]

I'm starting to believe this endless stream of tedious Royal rows is just manufactured to keep them on the front pages so they seem vaguely relevant. Who really gives a flying fuck what they call their children?

People who are desperate for something to keep the government's fuckups off said front pages.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Everyone arguing whether Wales is England or not and all I'm thinking is "People from Cardiff sound English. I don't think they identify as English."

I don't think anyone is really arguing that Wales is part of England, except Nihil, and even then he's just being pedantic over a historical technicality. Wales was officially annexed into the Kingdom of England centuries ago, but being part of the Kingdom of England whilst it existed does not make it part of the country of England as traditionally and customarily defined.

Wales is to England what Scotland is. They are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but they are separate from England and have their own Parliaments to deal with devolved, local matters. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So it technically happened in the Republic but because Sinn Fein is an all island party i thought i would mention it here: Party members disguised themselves as workers for a non existent polling company to secretly canvass their supporters before and during elections. They were provided with with fake badges and instructions on how to pass themselves off as poll workers to collect data on their voters.



Copy and pasted the article since its a pay walled article.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have both been revealed to have done this too btw just as a further comment to my original one.

But this is more a republic story so i wont bring it up again as it doesnt pertain to this thread.

What do we call Fianna Fail when they succeed?

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't think anyone is really arguing that Wales is part of England, except Nihil, and even then he's just being pedantic over a historical technicality. Wales was officially annexed into the Kingdom of England centuries ago, but being part of the Kingdom of England whilst it existed does not make it part of the country of England as traditionally and customarily defined.

Wales is to England what Scotland is. They are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but they are separate from England and have their own Parliaments to deal with devolved, local matters. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

I'm not sure why you are telling me this as if I don't know it.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Wales is to England what Scotland is. They are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but they are separate from England and have their own Parliaments to deal with devolved, local matters. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

I'm not sure why you are telling me this as if I don't know it.

Nah I'm just reiterating.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm not sure why you are telling me this as if I don't know it.

Nah I'm just reiterating.

Alright, I apologise for being overly defensive.

[Salandriagado]

That is not even remotely what I said in any way, shape, or form. Going back and actually reading the context would likely help your understanding.

I quoted you. I was responding to that sentence. Please explain what you meant by it since apparently I got it entirely wrong and that's not remotely what you said, even though I quoted your post.

If you can't be bothered to read more than one sentence, I sure as fuck can't be bothered to explain it to you again.

[The Archregimancy]

I don't think anyone is really arguing that Wales is part of England, except Nihil, and even then he's just being pedantic over a historical technicality. Wales was officially annexed into the Kingdom of England centuries ago, but being part of the Kingdom of England whilst it existed does not make it part of the country of England as traditionally and customarily defined.

Wales is to England what Scotland is. They are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but they are separate from England and have their own Parliaments to deal with devolved, local matters. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

That's an oversimplification.

Wales was definitively conquered by Norman England in 1282, and then was legally merged into the Kingdom of England in the first half of the 16th century.

Scotland and England became part of the same country via the King of Scotland inheriting the English throne, and the two kingdoms agreeing a century later to abolish their historical parliaments to form a new joint Parliament of Great Britain. This next point is often ignored but is constitutionally important, but both the historical parliaments of England and Scotland ceased to exist in 1707; the body that met after the 1707 Acts of Union was constitutionally an entirely new Parliament of Great Britain, though it met at the home of the abolished English Parliament.

The processes whereby Wales, Scotland, and England became part of a unified state are therefore historically distinct.

When new devolved legislatures were introduced for both Scotland and Wales in 1998, devolution was asymmetrical. The Scottish Parliament was given greater powers than the Welsh Assembly (now the Welsh Senedd). This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government of the day; whether it was the right decision is a separate matter.

In any case, the constitutional histories of Scotland and Wales are distinct. It's also worth stressing that Scotland formed a distinctive independent state as recently as 1707, whereas Wales was only ever ever briefly unified under a single ruler prior to 1282, under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn from 1057-1063.

It's not wholly incorrect to state that Wales was functionally politically united to England from the 1540s through 1998, though the majority of Wales remained highly culturally distinct throughout most of that period. The problem comes when someone writes 'Wales is just a semi-autonomous part of England' without attempting any broader context or nuance, and thereby implicitly - whether intentionally or not - discards any sense of Welsh identity in service of an ideological English nationalism (one masquerading as British nationalism) that inherently rejects not just Wales's historical cultural distinctiveness, but also any apparent sense of Wales as its own distinct national component within a broader state.

[Chan Island]

That's not irony my dear fellow. I don't go around saying you are something you aren't like when people conflate my identity with English nationalism. England isn't anymore of a distinct country than Wales. That's the difference you see, ironic would be thinking that everybody that was remain only considered themselves European or some other combination and ignoring they might in some part feel British. Recognising that Brexit was in a large part an identity contest doesn't mean you turn it into an either or situation.

There are four levels of identity broadly speaking any indervidual could feel in the UK. British (and or another nationality of family heritage), the four countries, regional and European. All four or any combination of the four.

Anyway you don't have to choose unless you bind up your European identity with the EU. I don't belive you should do that, European identity has existed long before the EU. Celebrate colective European culture, achievements etc whatever you consider makes you European outside the EU. That's doesn't have to combine with a political entity like the EU. I know the EU wants to make itself thee European culture and makes moves all the time to harmogenise stuff and supplant national cultures but it doesn't have to be that way. There is beauty in all the European cultures and its a shame about the over homogenisation brought about by the EU in recent years. It's those individual cultures collectively that make up Europe not the attempts by eurocrats to supplant everything like a 19th century colonial power.

I don’t know if this will surprise you or not but if I had to rank everything I would put European above English. I don't believe being European has to be about support for the EU.

Edit: I would be interested to know what it is that makes up your feelings of being European. It would be intresting to compare against why I mainly feel British.

I guess I might be the only person here who identifies primarily as English and secondarily as British. I didn't really feel that way a few years ago, but I feel like the differences between the home nations have sharpened of late (in part because of Brexit, but even before that with devolution and the rise of Scottish nationalism as a major political force). I am still a unionist, though. I don't feel European in any sense beyond the strictly geographical and I find it hard to understand why anyone would.

You are far from being the only one on that front. If I remember the stats correctly, about one third of people in England primarily identify as English.

You are correct in identifying that recent events have been sharpening this divide- just 10 years ago primarily English identity was basically a rounding error, and even before the referendum it was only about 15%. But that 15% was almost universally in favour of Brexit, and effectively have manoeuvred themselves to be the definition of Brexit which feeds into the growth. (again all this if memory serves).

As for the European identity, it isn't that hard to understand. I feel very European because I have mixed heritage of multiple European nations. Unifying it all together into a single word is thus completely natural, at least for me.

[The Nihilistic view]

Wales is to England what Scotland is. They are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but they are separate from England and have their own Parliaments to deal with devolved, local matters. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

That's an oversimplification.

Wales was definitively conquered by Norman England in 1282, and then was legally merged into the Kingdom of England in the first half of the 16th century.

Scotland and England became part of the same country via the King of Scotland inheriting the English throne, and the two kingdoms agreeing a century later to abolish their historical parliaments to form a new joint Parliament of Great Britain. This next point is often ignored but is constitutionally important, but both the historical parliaments of England and Scotland ceased to exist in 1707; the body that met after the 1707 Acts of Union was constitutionally an entirely new Parliament of Great Britain, though it met at the home of the abolished English Parliament.

The processes whereby Wales, Scotland, and England became part of a unified state are therefore historically distinct.

When new devolved legislatures were introduced for both Scotland and Wales in 1998, devolution was asymmetrical. The Scottish Parliament was given greater powers than the Welsh Assembly (now the Welsh Senedd). This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government of the day; whether it was the right decision is a separate matter.

In any case, the constitutional histories of Scotland and Wales are distinct. It's also worth stressing that Scotland formed a distinctive independent state as recently as 1707, whereas Wales was only ever ever briefly unified under a single ruler prior to 1282, under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn from 1057-1063.

It's not wholly incorrect to state that Wales was functionally politically united to England from the 1540s through 1998, though the majority of Wales remained highly culturally distinct throughout most of that period. The problem comes when someone writes 'Wales is just a semi-autonomous part of England' without attempting any broader context or nuance, and thereby implicitly - whether intentionally or not - discards any sense of Welsh identity in service of an ideological English nationalism (one masquerading as British nationalism) that inherently rejects not just Wales's historical cultural distinctiveness, but also any apparent sense of Wales as its own distinct national component within a broader state.

Perhaps implied if you reject different distinct regional differences between parts of England (or even parts of Wales). Treating England as one harmogenous mass is probably just as bad. You don't have to reject Welsh identity automatically by saying that it became part of England. Devon and Cornwall, and Yorkshire are as different to each other as they each are to Wales. I imagine actually you'd probably say Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with Yorkshire. Parts of Wales are probably closer to what people imagine being English to be than some Cornish towns. It's perhaps getting less in the modern day than say 100 years ago. You don't have to invalidate current cultural differences to recognise events of the past.

The other difficulty here is you have to accept England has a distinct identity and in that I'm not sure England has ever really developed a national identity in the way the other countries have. Its really always been made up of its regional identities up to now. I actually couldn't begin to suggest what an coherent English identity is. Which is funny because this all started because people assumed I was crapping on the Welsh. Out of all of the UK England is the country I actually think doesn't really have a distinct identity. Cricket and moris dancing, that's all I've got.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Irish and Northern Irish for me. Primarily the former.

[Dakini]

That's an oversimplification.

Wales was definitively conquered by Norman England in 1282, and then was legally merged into the Kingdom of England in the first half of the 16th century.

Scotland and England became part of the same country via the King of Scotland inheriting the English throne, and the two kingdoms agreeing a century later to abolish their historical parliaments to form a new joint Parliament of Great Britain. This next point is often ignored but is constitutionally important, but both the historical parliaments of England and Scotland ceased to exist in 1707; the body that met after the 1707 Acts of Union was constitutionally an entirely new Parliament of Great Britain, though it met at the home of the abolished English Parliament.

The processes whereby Wales, Scotland, and England became part of a unified state are therefore historically distinct.

When new devolved legislatures were introduced for both Scotland and Wales in 1998, devolution was asymmetrical. The Scottish Parliament was given greater powers than the Welsh Assembly (now the Welsh Senedd). This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government of the day; whether it was the right decision is a separate matter.

In any case, the constitutional histories of Scotland and Wales are distinct. It's also worth stressing that Scotland formed a distinctive independent state as recently as 1707, whereas Wales was only ever ever briefly unified under a single ruler prior to 1282, under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn from 1057-1063.

It's not wholly incorrect to state that Wales was functionally politically united to England from the 1540s through 1998, though the majority of Wales remained highly culturally distinct throughout most of that period. The problem comes when someone writes 'Wales is just a semi-autonomous part of England' without attempting any broader context or nuance, and thereby implicitly - whether intentionally or not - discards any sense of Welsh identity in service of an ideological English nationalism (one masquerading as British nationalism) that inherently rejects not just Wales's historical cultural distinctiveness, but also any apparent sense of Wales as its own distinct national component within a broader state.

Perhaps implied if you reject different distinct regional differences between parts of England (or even parts of Wales). Treating England as one harmogenous mass is probably just as bad. You don't have to reject Welsh identity automatically by saying that it became part of England. Devon and Cornwall, and Yorkshire are as different to each other as they each are to Wales. I imagine actually you'd probably say Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with Yorkshire. Parts of Wales are probably closer to what people imagine being English to be than some Cornish towns. It's perhaps getting less in the modern day than say 100 years ago. You don't have to invalidate current cultural differences to recognise events of the past.

Unlike the regions of England, Wales has a devolved parliament which is responsible for its NHS.

The other difficulty here is you have to accept England has a distinct identity and in that I'm not sure England has ever really developed a national identity in the way the other countries have. Its really always been made up of its regional identities up to now. I actually couldn't begin to suggest what an coherent English identity is. Which is funny because this all started because people assumed I was crapping on the Welsh. Out of all of the UK England is the country I actually think doesn't have a really have a distinct identity. Cricket and moris dancing, that's all I've got.

That's what happens when you define English as "the normal ones" while everyone else gets their own culture, shitty stereotypes and ethnic cleansing.

I'm also pretty sure that 90% of English culture is tea.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Wana see a 68 year old and six times elected MP act like a complete and utter child over something soo dumb and uniquely northern irish? Watch this.