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

[Dakini]

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.

Focusing on the important things.

[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.

He has also openly mocked the Irish Language on multiple occasions yet people saw him as a "moderate" because he backed Donaldson in the leadership election.

[Philjia]

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.

Northern Ireland is the gift that never stops giving, whether you want it to or not.

[Chan Island]

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.

That's a ... remarkable post.

I'll keep this to 3 points.

1) An identity doesn't have to be coherent to be valid. Heck, just look at Scotland which has big differences between the Highlands, Lowlands, Borders and the Islands, yet we readily ascribe to them the common monicker of "Scottish". Including a great number of people who happily identify themselves with that label while ignoring that their experience of life is not the same as those from other parts of the same nation.

2) You bring up Cornwall and Yorkshire, but on reflection I think we bring them up a lot in this debate precisely because they are very distinct anomalies in the greater English whole. Can you readily define the differences between Hampshire and Wiltshire? Or Berkshire from Rutland from Lincolnshire? I'm sure if you asked people from those distinct areas they'll find something unique, but for the most part these are notably quiet.
There are some regions in England that absolutely have their own character which people strongly identify with- Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, London and a couple of the other major cities or university towns. At a stretch maybe Essex and Kent. But apart from a few vague generalities like north and south, the rest of England is remarkably devoid of distinct regional affiliations. Certainly much more so than any other country I can think of. Heck, we even foist the idea of the Midlands on a large part of the country without the entire consent of the people who live there, who often choose to pick a side between north and south.

3) It's not hard to think of many commonalities across England. Love of football, pubs, chanting when someone drops a tray in the canteen, the class system, tolerance (though often not good at showing it, by world standards England is extraordinarily tolerant), tea, valuing animals far more than our fellow humans, dry humour, Harry Potter, fish&chips...
If I may be so bold, perhaps this is one of those instances where you are being like a fish claiming it can't see water. You are so immersed into England and it's culture that you have grown a discerning eye to focus on micro-differences that a foreigner would be hard-pressed to spot.

[The Nihilistic view]

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.

That's a ... remarkable post.

I'll keep this to 3 points.

1) An identity doesn't have to be coherent to be valid. Heck, just look at Scotland which has big differences between the Highlands, Lowlands, Borders and the Islands, yet we readily ascribe to them the common monicker of "Scottish". Including a great number of people who happily identify themselves with that label while ignoring that their experience of life is not the same as those from other parts of the same nation.

2) You bring up Cornwall and Yorkshire, but on reflection I think we bring them up a lot in this debate precisely because they are very distinct anomalies in the greater English whole. Can you readily define the differences between Hampshire and Wiltshire? Or Berkshire from Rutland from Lincolnshire? I'm sure if you asked people from those distinct areas they'll find something unique, but for the most part these are notably quiet.
There are some regions in England that absolutely have their own character which people strongly identify with- Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, London and a couple of the other major cities or university towns. At a stretch maybe Essex and Kent. But apart from a few vague generalities like north and south, the rest of England is remarkably devoid of distinct regional affiliations. Certainly much more so than any other country I can think of. Heck, we even foist the idea of the Midlands on a large part of the country without the entire consent of the people who live there, who often choose to pick a side between north and south.

3) It's not hard to think of many commonalities across England. Love of football, pubs, chanting when someone drops a tray in the canteen, the class system, tolerance (though often not good at showing it, by world standards England is extraordinarily tolerant), tea, valuing animals far more than our fellow humans, dry humour, Harry Potter, fish&chips...
If I may be so bold, perhaps this is one of those instances where you are being like a fish claiming it can't see water. You are so immersed into England and it's culture that you have grown a discerning eye to focus on micro-differences that a foreigner would be hard-pressed to spot.

What you have mostly described in point three is I would say the British identity mixed with regular human decency (which even if you want to ascribe it to us would make it a British thing not an English thing) and a side of things that are popular in the anglosphere because they are mostly just a prevalent in the rest of the UK and in some cases Ireland and beyond. Do the Welsh not equally like pubs for instance to say nothing of the Irish? Do the Scottish not love football? Do Americans not go potty for Potter? Non of those things are primarily a mostly English thing, far from it. Fish and chips originated in England but its far from being English now, you can't say a chippy isn't a fixture of the other parts of the UK it's become part of British culture rather than just English culture. "Random things we like which other places like just as much" isn't a culture to identify with. The class system perhaps is what with us foisting it on the rest of the UK but is that really something you want to build a cultural identity around?

Completely coherent no, elements of cultural uniqueness, traditions or things that are most popular in said country yes. That's what you have to peice together, I think you'll find it harder than you think to find predominately English things as opposed to British things if you want to put a coherent identity together that is strong enough to stand out as distinctly English. When something is equally widespread around the whole of the UK you can't call it English instead of British. We can pick out traditions that are Welsh, Scottish or Irish, they have cultural distinctiveness that is widespread enough around the respective whole country and that such distinctiveness isn't shared with much of the rest of the UK. That's what makes it the Scottish, Welsh or NI identity.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't actually think it's a surprise we have skipped the English part out and were more regional instead. Most English regions with a distinct identity are as large or larger than one or several of the other three countries. When Yorkshire is the size of Scotland in population is it a surprise if in the past somebody from Yorkshire has British and Yorkshire cultural feelings and what links them with somebody from Hampshire is the British element and not any English element? Espechially when English nationalism was something nobody had even thought about until about 2005.

[Celritannia]

I don't actually think it's a surprise we have skipped the English part out and were more regional instead. Most English regions with a distinct identity are as large or larger than one or several of the other three countries. When Yorkshire is the size of Scotland in population is it a surprise if in the past somebody from Yorkshire has British and Yorkshire cultural feelings and what links them with somebody from Hampshire is the British element and not any English element? Espechially when English nationalism was something nobody had even thought about until about 2005.

IIRC, there was a study done where people from Yorkshire feel more closely linked to Scotland than they do England. There is also the fact that many Yorkshire rugby players will play for the Scottish National team since it is harder for them to get into the English National Rugby team.

Yorkshire also once had its own bagpipes until they became extinct back in the 1400s.

These difference within the English Regions is why I support Federalisation. England is not so fused as we have made to believe.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I don't actually think it's a surprise we have skipped the English part out and were more regional instead. Most English regions with a distinct identity are as large or larger than one or several of the other three countries. When Yorkshire is the size of Scotland in population is it a surprise if in the past somebody from Yorkshire has British and Yorkshire cultural feelings and what links them with somebody from Hampshire is the British element and not any English element? Espechially when English nationalism was something nobody had even thought about until about 2005.

IIRC, there was a study done where people from Yorkshire feel more closely linked to Scotland than they do England. There is also the fact that many Yorkshire rugby players will play for the Scottish National team since it is harder for them to get into the English National Rugby team.

Yorkshire also once had its own bagpipes until they became extinct back in the 1400s.

These difference within the English Regions is why I support Federalisation. England is not so fused as we have made to believe.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Alot of Northern English men even sound kind of Scottish, especially Geordies.

[Heloin]

Focusing on the important things.

He has also openly mocked the Irish Language on multiple occasions yet people saw him as a "moderate" because he backed Donaldson in the leadership election.

A moderate in Northern Ireland is a person who sees someone in a Celtics or Rangers jersey and doesn't immediately try to fight them.

[Hirota]

The NHS is devolved and Wales is kicking ass at getting the Welsh people vaccinated. Trying to take credit for that and act like this is just because Wales is basically just England whenever it does something well (but of course, they're Welsh when things don't go well) doesn't endear anyone.

This England is the best, everyone else is terrible shit doesn't endear anyone to the union.

Kicking arse? 6 doses ahead of the rest of the UK average. That's about a week at current pace? You talk like it's six weeks ahead.

Given the differences in the median ages of the population of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, I'd be inclined to suggest the difference in vaccine distribution correlates pretty nicely. Given older demographics were prioritised it would make sense older population groups (at least in median terms) in some regions would be prioritised.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Got excited there when i saw a DUP MLA had stepped down but its because of health reasons. He was diagnosed with cancer a while back

[Ostroeuropa]

150 teachers in Ofxford refuse to teach any students who come from the college which has a Rhodes statue.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... des-statue

[Old Tyrannia]

150 teachers in Ofxford refuse to teach any students who come from the college which has a Rhodes statue.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... des-statue

Imagine if anyone else refused to do their job for such a petulant reason.

"I'm sorry, sir, but I understand that some people you are loosely associated with have taken a decision that I disagree with. As such, I can't sell you this Big Mac."

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

IIRC, there was a study done where people from Yorkshire feel more closely linked to Scotland than they do England. There is also the fact that many Yorkshire rugby players will play for the Scottish National team since it is harder for them to get into the English National Rugby team.

Yorkshire also once had its own bagpipes until they became extinct back in the 1400s.

These difference within the English Regions is why I support Federalisation. England is not so fused as we have made to believe.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Alot of Northern English men even sound kind of Scottish, especially Geordies.

Not to UK people they don't. For your own safety I recommend not saying that in Newcastle or Sunderland.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Why did you delete your comment ostro about ostracising progressive left wingers from society, breaking up their meetings and cracking down on them just short of violence? In effect "Outlawing them" you said.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why did you delete your comment ostro about ostracising progressive left wingers from society, breaking up their meetings and cracking down on them just short of violence? In effect "Outlawing them" you said.

Figured there'd be no point in keeping it as it's either something people agree with or don't and there's not much discussion to be had. I stand by it though. The only solution to the extremism we're seeing currently is direct action. They can't be talked around. The only solution is to not reward their defections in the prisoner dilemma. Defect when they do, when they defect again by lashing out at your retaliation to their behavior, continue to defect instead of backing down into cooperating like they demand. Escalate each time they do until they learn not to behave that way.


Currently we've adopted an "Always cooperate" model and we're stuck explaining to them why that is beneficial for everyone in the long run, but it's actually a losing strategy compared to "tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness".

In the event progressives are an "Always defect" model they'll actually end up either dead or in prison as a result of society adopting a tit-for-tat policy. If instead they're a model that seeks to exploit cooperation but will back down when they meet a tit-for-tat model, then that's fine. Either way the key is to accept that attempting to convince them to stop behaving this way with words hasn't worked and the way to deal with them is tit-for-tat strikes on individuals in their movement.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Why did you delete your comment ostro about ostracising progressive left wingers from society, breaking up their meetings and cracking down on them just short of violence? In effect "Outlawing them" you said.

Figured there'd be no point in keeping it as it's either something people agree with or don't and there's not much discussion to be had. I stand by it though. The only solution to the extremism we're seeing currently is direct action. They can't be talked around. The only solution is to not reward their defections in the prisoner dilemma.

Fair enough, was just curious.

[The Blaatschapen]

Figured there'd be no point in keeping it as it's either something people agree with or don't and there's not much discussion to be had. I stand by it though. The only solution to the extremism we're seeing currently is direct action. They can't be talked around. The only solution is to not reward their defections in the prisoner dilemma.

Fair enough, was just curious.

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

[Vassenor]

Fair enough, was just curious.

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

Apparently disrupting the old social order and not worshipping the idealised past.

[The Free Joy State]

Fair enough, was just curious.

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

Technically, far-right extremism is the fastest growing terrorism threat in the UK (according to the police), so arguably they should be clamped down on much much more.

EDIT: Not that I agree with Ostro on ostracising progressive left-wingers (though, FWIW, I think the teachers' refusal to teach students from Oriel is counter-productive). But, it is certainly worth pointing out the group that has been found to pose the (growing) societal threat.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Fair enough, was just curious.

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

No you are right its not fair enough. I misspoke.

EDIT: Also No where near as much danger as the far right do. As Joy pointed out they are the fasted growing terrorist threat in the UK.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

Technically, far-right extremism is the fastest growing terrorism threat in the UK (according to the police), so arguably they should be clamped down on much much more.

You want a good example of the dangers of the far right? Loyalist paramilitaries and the DUP. If they are not driving Catholics out of mixed estates, fostering drugs on their own areas or threatening businesses for money they are getting young protestants involved in riots and clashes with the police and nationalist youths so they get convictions and criminal records, cementing their position in Loyalist groups.

You think the only reason those unionist youths torched that bus and attacked the PSNI as they were being cheered on by their older community members was Brexit? Nah it goes a lot deeper than that. Its them trying to ensure they have a new generation of disenfranchised and angry recruits.

And then their elected officials blame literally everyone else for things that go wrong, even when they are heavily responsible for it such as the NI Protocol and Brexit in order to foster a culture of resentment and hatred at everyone outside of their immediate community group. Be it the Irish, Constitutional "Other" parties like Alliance, the Irish Government, LGBT, Muslims, the UK government etc etc

And thats just in one part of the UK. Not even touching Islamism or people openly killing MP's in their constituency offices or spreading misinformation about shit like covid.

[Old Tyrannia]

Fair enough, was just curious.

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

We already ostracise the far-right. There are serious social consequences from expressing far-right views publically. On the other hand, radical left-wingers enjoy a near monopoly on positions within certain sectors of society, particularly academia, the publishing establishment, and televised media. That's why there is more open violence fromthe far-right than the far-left. The former lacks meaningful societal and institutional power, so open violence is one of the few resorts available to them to impose their will on others and make their views known. For the far-left, there is much to lose and little to gain from open violence; it's safer and more effective to advance their goals through institutional power as the Oxford academics opposed to Rhodes' statue are doing.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, not fair enough.

What dangers do progressive left wingers pose to current society? And if we are ostrocising them, should we then do the same (/more) for the far right, if they pose similar dangers?

We already ostracise the far-right. There are serious social consequences from expressing far-right views publically. On the other hand, radical left-wingers enjoy a near monopoly on positions within certain sectors of society, particularly academia, the publishing establishment, and televised media. That's why there is more open violence fromthe far-right than the far-left. The former lacks meaningful societal and institutional power, so open violence is one of the few resorts available to them to impose their will on others and make their views known. For the far-left, there is much to lose and little to gain from open violence; it's safer and more effective to advance their goals through institutional power as the Oxford academics opposed to Rhodes' statue are doing.

This. There's also a severe miscalculation in terms of harm here going on. Weigh the number of people dead as a result of far-right violence against the number of people dead because of consistent filibustering on the topic of mens issues and male suicide, for example.

The systemic nature of the harm the progressive left does doesn't make it somehow magically less harmful.

People here are responding to "We need to fire and ostracize the people who have driven the black community into ruin through persistent abuses of the institutional power they hold" with "Well some black people do crimes! They do much more assaults and murders than the bankers who foreclosed on their houses and drove them into the street! So they're a bigger threat! Why, just last year there were FOURTEEN of them! Nationally! That's obviously a much more serious and dire threat to our democracy than the systemic seizure of all the houses in the country under a dozen bankers".

Only if you don't actually understand or see anything wrong with what progressives are doing in the first place does such an argument make any sense at all. It's a nonsense whataboutism designed to frame threat in terms of "action outside the status quo" and measure it that way while ignoring that *progressives enact their violent impulses through state violence, not independent violence*.

By all means, keep the far-right out of institutions too. Deny them the opportunity to use the state to violently persecute people. But you need to also do so for the progressive left. Drive them out of institutions, ostracize them, and marginalize them from society.

You'd soon enough see some of them behaving like the far-right and doing acts of terrorism instead, but the point is *their overall impact on society would be dramatically diminished as a result, as would the harm they do*.

This argument seems to suggest that the folk bringing it up *honestly believe* that, for instance regarding me,

Do they honestly, honestly believe I would think "My god, feminists have started harming society much much more than they did before we fired them all and drove them out of institutions and curtailed their influence on policy. I had no idea things would get this bad. Just look. 10 deaths in a year from them blowing things up. This is so much worse than when they had influence and did shit like pressuring the UN not to feed men in disaster zones".

If they think that, they seriously aren't paying attention. Obviously we do not find these forms of harm anywhere near comparable and its frankly ludicrous to suggest "The far-right is worse" on that basis.

I long for the day feminists are planting bombs rather than writing legislation. Even a basic understanding of political terrorism would reveal why this argument is ridiculous. The far-right kills people *so they can get the power to write legislation*, not as an end in its own right, because they understand that the harm terrorism does is significantly lower than the harm they can do with the state.

Let's examine the 2010s as an entire decade.
2010-2013. Nothing from the far-right.
2013: One death.
2014-2016: Nothing.
2016: Jo Cox assassination.
2017: One death.
2018-2020. Nothing.

Two.

Two dead people. In a decade.

Lightning strikes kill three people every single year.

Let's compare:

Male suicide per year UK: 19.5 / 100,000.

So, the number of male suicides *in a single year, for only 100,000 people* is 1000% higher than the risk of far-right terrorism.

Compared to the female suicide rate of 5.4, that's around 15/100,000 that can be laid at the door of anti-male dynamics in society. Still hundreds of % higher (And again, for only 100,000 rather than 65 million). And that's *just one issue*.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Sinn Féin and DUP to defer NDNA showdown until the autumn say Stormont insiders

SINN Féin and the DUP are expected to defer any potential crisis in the institutions until the autumn, according to Stormont insiders.

It is understood that both parties are keen to avert a showdown next week that could jeopardise devolution.

The resignation of Arlene Foster following tomorrow's British-Irish Council is expected to trigger a week of intensive negotiations over Irish language legislation and other commitments in last year's New Decade New Approach deal.

It has been suggested that if the DUP do not consent to bring forward Irish language legislation soon then Sinn Féin will refuse to back Paul Givan's nomination as first minister.

However, The Irish News has been told that both parties are determined to avoid the "nuclear button" and that a collapse of the institutions, similar to that surrounding the RHI scandal in 2017, has been ruled out due to the challenges posed by Covid and what one Stormont source described as "housekeeping in both parties".

The rift within the DUP has been widely publicised in recent weeks but Sinn Féin has its own internal difficulties, which were recently exposed by the ousting of veteran republican Martina Anderson in Foyle.

There has been widespread speculation that the party is seeking to address difficulties in other constituencies ahead of an assembly election.

Sinn Féin's southern contingent is also eager to avoid any adverse publicity that a collapse of the institutions would bring, as it would impact badly on the party's election ambitions in the Republic.

A Sinn Féin spokesman said speculation of a post-dated deadline for the DUP was "news to me" but Stormont sources have indicated that both parties are "shadow boxing" and that "after the usual hype" the nominations for first and deputy first ministers will be agreed.

"Sinn Féin has its eyes on Mary Lou being taoiseach and they won't let anything jeopardise that - hence the leader's recent hands-on approach at Stormont," the source said.

"Both parties have their own internal housekeeping to deal with, while neither of them wants to be associated with collapsing the institutions, for whatever reason, as we emerge from a pandemic."

Irish News columnist Brian Feeney said he believed the parties would agree a "calender of operations" that would see "give and take on a range of issues".

"It looks like there'll be a post-dated deadline rather than an immediate one, which enables the parties to bed-in and for Sinn Féin to manoeuvre itself onto the moral high ground ahead of any potential collapse," he said.

Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O'Neill yesterday said she wanted more than "fluffy words" from Edwin Poots on his commitment to deliver Irish language legislation.

Looks like the DUP and SF are both eager to not have stormont collapse so issues regarding things like the Irish Language are being put on hold till the Autumn. Which most likely means Givan's appointment to the role of FM will not be blocked by SF.