Young Scots are strongest supporters of the Union

[Aptrgangr]

Young Scots are strongest supporters of the Union

Young Scots are the most enthusiastic supporters of the Union in the country, according to a new opinion poll for The Scotsman published today on the 300th anniversary of the act's approval by the Scottish Parliament.
The poll by ICM found that 42 per cent of the 18-24 age group believed the Union has had a positive impact on Scotland, while only 19 per cent felt it had been negative.
This was the most definite and positive endorsement of the Union from any age group and contrasted with the attitude of 35 to 44-year-olds, 31 per cent of whom felt the Union had been negative, more than the 30 per cent who supported the Union.
Overall, The Scotsman poll found that 36 per cent of Scots believe the Union has had a positive effect and 27 per cent think its impact has been negative.
But the survey also found that a large number of Scots are still uncertain about the Union. Almost a third, 31 per cent, said they were unsure about its impact while 6 per cent said they believed the Union had not affected Scotland at all.
Indeed, there is really a three-way split between the positive, negative and unsure categories.
The backing of such a high proportion of young people is surprising, given that young voters have traditionally been most likely to vote SNP.
It seems to suggest that youthful idealism has, in many cases, manifested itself in support of the concept of the Union and retaining closer ties with England.
But it could also suggest that the SNP's success in picking up substantial support from young voters is starting to wane.
However, people from working-class backgrounds are more inclined to be opposed to the Union than the middle classes.
The poll found that 30 per cent of those from the social classification D-E (the poorer, less well-educated section of society) thought the Union had been negative, while 28 per cent viewed it as positive.
These figures were reversed among the affluent middle classes (ABC1s) with 43 to 42 per cent in favour of the Union and 21-25 per cent against.
Women were much more likely to be unsure about the Union, while men held more definite views.
A total of 38 per cent of women and just 24 per cent of men said they did not know whether the Union had had a positive or negative effect.
The Union secured the most support in Lothian and Borders (45 per cent) and Fife (39 per cent) and the least in the Highlands and Islands (26 per cent) and Grampian (30 per cent).
Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said: "The poll indicates great uncertainty about the Union, with only around one-third of Scots believing it has a positive effect. The balance believe it has been negative or have no view.
"What is clear is that there is an extremely positive response to independence when the question is put in a reasonable and neutral fashion - with last week's ICM poll, for example, showing an absolute majority of Scots in favour."
But a spokesman for the Labour Party said: "As the majority of Scots recognise, the Union is good for Scotland.
"Scotland receives a strong Union dividend, the UK is Scotland's largest trading partner and, with a strong stable economy, Labour has been able to invest in health and education. All of this would be at risk with the SNP's plans to isolate Scotland by breaking up Britain."
Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Tories, said: "I am pleased so many Scots realise we have benefited from the Union and that more has been achieved together than if we were marginalised as an independent, north European nation.
"There are so many areas where, in terms of influence, we are so much stronger working together than we could ever be on our own. People recognise what is at stake if we abandon that."
Another poll published yesterday found that the English would like a parliament of their own and that both the Scots and the Welsh think the English should have one, too.
The BBC/ORB opinion poll for BBC2's Newsnight programme found that 61 per cent of the English felt there should now be an English parliament. They were supported by 51 per cent of Scots and 48 per cent of the Welsh.
But the opinion poll also found there was no majority support in any of the nations of Great Britain for independence.
When asked if the Union should break up - with Scotland and Wales each gaining their independence - only 16 per cent of the English, and 32 per cent of Scots agreed.
A total of 73 per cent of the English and 56 per cent of the Scots wanted things in the Union to stay as they are.

BROWN MISSES CELEBRATION PARTY
Gordon Brown was last night accused of snubbing his own celebration of the Union, after it emerged he will not attend a party he organised to launch a commemorative £2 coin.
The coin will be officially unveiled at a reception tonight at the Scotland Office in London. Invitations had been issued in Mr Brown's name, but it was confirmed last night that the Chancellor will be on a plane to India at the time of the event.
The invitation was issued from: "The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Master of the Royal Mint."
Although the event was being billed as the government's set-piece celebration of the Treaty of Union, there were also question marks last night over whether Tony Blair would attend. Despite repeated questions from journalists yesterday, Downing Street was unable to say if the Prime Minister would be at the reception, or even if he had been invited.
Meanwhile, Scotland's sole Conservative MP has tabled a motion at Westminster celebrating the Act of Union and asked MPs from all sides to sign it. David Mundell, the shadow secretary of state for Scotland, lodged an early day motion at Westminster calling on all unionists to use the 300th anniversary of the act to reiterate the case for the Union. However, it stands little chance of being debated.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/news.cfm?id=77432007

[Menydh]

It contradicts a recent previous poll also by ICM:

A turn of the wheel in Scotland

It smells fishy..

[Milesian]

Opinion polls exist to create opinion, not report it.
It relies on the "Herd Mentality". People will think and act as they think everyone else is doing.

Originally Posted by Bill Kovach, Harvard

It is part of the old question: Do opinion polls shape opinion or do they measure opinion? I think a compelling argument could be made that in the absence of strong and sustained reporting on the facts underlying an issue, polls can and do shape and create opinion.

[EnglishJac]

Vote SNP Set England free

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by EnglishJac

Vote SNP Set England free

That seems to be the best option right now.

[EnglishJac]

Indeed it is, and the injustice against the English people shall come to an end

[Menydh]

I'm curious. What is that injustice against the English people?

[EnglishJac]

There is a reason behind the growth of English nationalism, until 1997 Britain was a nation, since then devolution has been granted to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, Scotland having its own parliament giving it legistive powers in governance of education, health, transport, law, and much more, the same goes for Wales and its welsh assembly.

England on the other hand has nothing, no assembly and no parliament, politically England does not exist, and the British government intentionally denies any form of English political entity as a distinct nation.

So polices such as education, health etc are enacted by the British government which consists of Scottish welsh and Northern Irish MPs who vote on solely English matters, the English Mps cant vote on solely Scottish , Northern Irish or welsh matters because they have their own parliaments/assemblies for such governance, individuals who are not elected in an English constituency hold positions within the British government that only have jurisdiction in England due to devolution in the other UK nations.

The UK government intends to turn England into regions and govern it using regional assemblies which would render England as a country geographically extinct.

Then you have got the barnet formula which basically gives the people of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland more money per capita then those in England, bearing in mind that this is English money being spent.

Life saving cancer drugs are provided in Scotland but not in England, English people are literally dying because to proved the drug in England would not be cost affective.

Student tuition fees voted in favor by Scottish MPs for English students, but not Scottish ones, even English students studying in Scotland have to pay additional costs, more so then even foreign students.

Free residential care for Scottish old folk, English old folks have to sell there homes to receive it.

Recently nurses in Scotland got a certain percent pay rise but for some reason not in England.

Free prescriptions in Wales, the English who nip over to get their prescriptions are branded health tourists by the welsh assembly first minister.

Now the British government consists of a predominantly Scottish contingent, basically all the top jobs are headed be Scots, nothing wrong with this, if the UK was in fact that, but a united kingdom, it is not obviously.

On top of all this constitutional and political injustice you have got the problems with the effects of multiculturalism.

The UK government in England is not called the Scottish Raj for nothing.

[Menydh]

Britain as a political entity is the spawn of England. You may argue about Scottish or Welsh involvement from some point of history or another, but the point is that it was upon England's will that Britain was spawned.

I have argued for some time that it is precisely the construct of Britain which will be England's (and Scotland's and Wales' or any other nation 'assimilated' by it) graveyard. This is of course an analysis from an ethnic point of view. For me the idea of nationhood depends upon a certain degree of ethnic homogeneity and as such I understand Nationalism. In that respect British is a concept unrelated to nationhood since it assimilates a wide range of nations and other identity groups, be it [British] Scottish, [British] English, [British] Indian, [British] Afro-Caribbean, ... even [British] Australian or [British] Muslim. At any rate, British seems to mark the step at which ethnic nationhood stops being anymore a reality.

However, I am aware that there are people who understand the concept of nationhood differently, equating it to statehood. And, regardless of whether I believe that it is a misunderstanding or not, the word nation is sometimes used to identify states even when it is wrong. And here, again, Britain seems to be the graveyard for England judging from what you are saying. Although in this case this is not a shared problem with the other nations.

You point at the problem yourself when you say "Britain was a nation". Well, it was not. It was a state. If Britain had been a nation the separation of the different territories into states would not change things much with regards to nationhood. But because those territories are nations in their own right (or a part of a different nation as in the case of Northern Ireland), their move towards constituting their own states follows the total disintegration of Britain since it is not a nation and it is stopping being a state anymore.

How this affects to England is clear to me. Since England has been identifying itself with Britain through long centuries, it has come to a point where it has lost its identity to Britain. One might argue that Britain's identity is then England's and that it's been England which has molded Britain's identity. That would be true to a point. But then again, it would also be true that Britain has assimilated enough elements from other identities (and not just from the Islands) and that has obviously affected England's self identity.

This is reflected in your accounts which show a status of weakness in front the other national territories. It also reflects in the fact that Nationalism as such does not exist in England, but the closest to it is a racist group, the British National Party, adscribed in the so-called White Nationalist movement (which doesn't stand for any nation nor is it any real movement). In other words, not very close to what Nationalism is and represents.

It's always been my suspicion that if anything close to Nationalism came to existance in England, it would have to be still different to Nationalism elsewhere and probably come through a split in the Tories. I wouldn't dare to speculate about the details of this possible nationalist approach.

What's your opinion on the whole issue?

[EnglishJac]

It is obviously that the English until recently identified themselves as British because of the influence of England within the Union there was no great cultural influence from the other nations, and of course it was a Union between England and Scotland, as Wales and Ireland had already become conquests of England at the time of the act of union, but the Scots joined in Union for a particular reason that it had bankrupted itself trying to set up a colony in panama. And the English people at the time were not best impressed, about the Union with Scotland.

And in regards to Britain as a nation I meant that in terms of a state, a political union which of course has ceased realistically to function due to devolution, denied to the English.

I am not having ago at you, but English Nationalism is growing at an incredible pace, the British national party has tried to jump on the bandwagon of the popular thought amongst English people, which they have failed because of the fact there is no such thing as a British nationalist or nationality and their ideology both racist and other just is not excepted.
English people have woken up post devolution slowly lol, but they are getting there.

English nationalism is growing because it’s based on Englishness, the erosion of English culture by multiculturalism and the anti English polices of the British government and obviously the negative political and demographic affects of devolution granted towards the other home nations on England.

I think the reason that there is a different type of nationalism in England is due to political correctness, I mean the welsh and Scots base theirs on their supposed Celtic genetics or ancestry, their Celtic culture, you simply can not embrace the Anglo Saxon or Germanic culture of England with out being branded a racist so of course this makes people shy away from embracing their identity and of course English nationalism, if you can not embrace the founding fathers of your country or fly the flag of St George how can you be expected to excel in the UK as a distinct ethnic group let alone a political ideology, which puts England and its culture first.

There is a book somewhere detailing how the English began as the first nationalists, perhaps we are becoming the last, but nationalists all the same., and it is clear that it is based on Englishness not britishness, multiculturalism is wrong it is simply destroying England, multi ethinicty with one common national identity that being English of the English nation, is something that makes sense and is what English Nationalism is about in my view, I class myself as ethnically English, but one if not ethnically can be culturally.

I would, given your almost dismissive as if it doesn’t exit accounts of English nationalism encourage you to look it up, I think you would be surprised by the vast amount of internet and other public material to it and you should come across a growing English Political Party, there is an English Rights March in may also.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by EnglishJac

It is obviously that the English until recently identified themselves as British because of the influence of England within the Union there was no great cultural influence from the other nations, and of course it was a Union between England and Scotland, as Wales and Ireland had already become conquests of England at the time of the act of union, but the Scots joined in Union for a particular reason that it had bankrupted itself trying to set up a colony in panama. And the English people at the time were not best impressed, about the Union with Scotland.

That's all fine and easy to see. What is perhaps not so easy to see is how much the constructed identity of Britain has affected the English identity. Even when British identity was in a large part influenced by the English element, there have been other identity elements in its construction, such as the Scottish or the Welsh, and the evolutive element which has colonial elements.

Clearly, this is no problem for Scotland or Wales in terms of their national identities for they have resisted pressure to "britanization". But England did give up its own identity to the British one, assuming British and English being two name for the same.

And in regards to Britain as a nation I meant that in terms of a state, a political union which of course has ceased realistically to function due to devolution, denied to the English.

I am not having ago at you, but English Nationalism is growing at an incredible pace, the British national party has tried to jump on the bandwagon of the popular thought amongst English people, which they have failed because of the fact there is no such thing as a British nationalist or nationality and their ideology both racist and other just is not excepted.
English people have woken up post devolution slowly lol, but they are getting there.

That the BNP was in the wrong path is nothing new to me. The misunderstanding here is that I was speaking in terms of English Nationalism as a flagship of a political force or movement, or even an ideological one. While you were referring to a sentiment of nationalism which appears to be awaking in the minds of the English people.

It is, however, incidential that this sentiment has been awoken the rejection of the other nations of the British union. Under such circumstances, it will udoubtedly be interesting to see how it developes in the future.

English nationalism is growing because it’s based on Englishness, the erosion of English culture by multiculturalism and the anti English polices of the British government and obviously the negative political and demographic affects of devolution granted towards the other home nations on England.

As for the BNP, it will also be interesting to see how it tries to adapt and to accommodate to this reality. Previous (and present) attempts to adapt by the BNP have been rather pathetic and offered little credibility.

I think the reason that there is a different type of nationalism in England is due to political correctness, I mean the welsh and Scots base theirs on their supposed Celtic genetics or ancestry, their Celtic culture, you simply can not embrace the Anglo Saxon or Germanic culture of England with out being branded a racist so of course this makes people shy away from embracing their identity and of course English nationalism, if you can not embrace the founding fathers of your country or fly the flag of St George how can you be expected to excel in the UK as a distinct ethnic group let alone a political ideology, which puts England and its culture first.

It's back to square one I'm afraid. Because the question is if England has retained its English identity apart from the British identity. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic England? Politically correctness aside, I wouldn't be certain that the English people would swallow that pill. Anything German gives the creeps to the English.

There is a book somewhere detailing how the English began as the first nationalists, perhaps we are becoming the last, but nationalists all the same., and it is clear that it is based on Englishness not britishness, multiculturalism is wrong it is simply destroying England, multi ethinicty with one common national identity that being English of the English nation, is something that makes sense and is what English Nationalism is about in my view, I class myself as ethnically English, but one if not ethnically can be culturally.

I see.

I would, given your almost dismissive as if it doesn’t exit accounts of English nationalism encourage you to look it up, I think you would be surprised by the vast amount of internet and other public material to it and you should come across a growing English Political Party, there is an English Rights March in may also.

I've seen a few things here and there, which I haven't taken much seriously. What you see on the internet is rarely an image of the real world. The only party that I know of in that respect is England First Party. Is that the one you are referring to?

[EnglishJac]

Sorry for my delayed response, I think most of the things you have stated are the reasons behind the rise in English nationalism, it is to do with the fact that the English are referred to as British and that there is no differation and it would probably still be the case if the United Kingdom was still exactly that, United.

But it isn’t and the English are realising that the Scots and the other respective home nations have been grated a sense of national identity on a political level, which is something the English are denied.

I don’t think that is a fiar assumption to make in reference to the terminology of “German” by Germanic I mean as opposed to Celtic , which culturally Germanic of course is the foundation of the English nation, the English are referred to as Anglo Saxon even if 70% of the population apparently derives from the first bronze age settlers, people who are aware of Anglo Saxon, Viking , Norman history of England will no doubt acknowledge the fact that it was Germanic and in no way have images popping in their heads of the Luftwaffe bombing our chip shops.

The British culture in England is English; all we need to do is swap the Union Flag with the cross of St George and British with English, and that is most defiantly happening. Look at English football supporters for example, hardly any union jacks amongst them anymore.

There is also a resurrection of perhaps the “true” English flag as it is being described which is a white dragon, which stems from the origins of the welsh red dragon, in which the Saxons were represented by a white dragon the Britons a red one when the Germanic invasions of Britain and what is now England began.

And there is no doubt English nationalism is in its growing stages but it is growing at a rapid pace, it does not get to much coverage in the news for obvious reasons, the current government doesn’t want the union to break up, and we are the only major player of course. But their have been numerous TV discussions, loads of national and local news articles, radio discussions organisations set up and political parties to the issue etc.

So obviously voices are being raised and people are having to listen, except of course the current British Government.

The internet can give the idea of what’s going on and that’s why there is numerous blogs websites etc to the issue, and no the England first party is most certainly NOT who I was referring to, I was referring to a party called the “English democrat party”, not exactly sure its ideology is on par with a few posters, but it is the only realistic and the most prominent of English Nationalist parties.

[Menydh]

Your response has been only of 8 hours delay. That is fairly quick for the standards of an internet forum, where it can delay days if not weeks or months. Mind you, sometimes responses arrive even after a year.

I had seen before this England Democrats party, but I must admit that I didn't pay it much attention.

I had always thought that a nationallist-like (though not quite Nationalist) alternative would come through a split up from the ranks of the Tories. Obviously for such a thing to have happened there are facts that can't be missed.

For one, the political parties scenery in England is no different from that of many other countries in so-called Western Europe in that there exists a bi-polarization where the battle for political power takes place between two main parties, one leaning to the right and the other to the left. With third parties as secondary players always hoping to scratch the discontent voters from one of the two main players or of the two.

This bi-polarization makes it extremely difficult for an alternative to hope for a cutting-edge break-in into the political arena. It is often the case that the two main players have two different type of voters: one group of faithful voters who vote for the party policies and another group of voters who vote against the other party's policies.

It is from this second group that secondary parties can hope to scratch a few votes.

Going back to the Conservative Party, the long term stay of Blair in office makes it unlikely for members of the Conservative Party to set onto any adventurous enterprises.

Another fact is that the Conservative Party is impregnated of britishness, and thus a change of mind towards englishness is highly unlikely for others but the more moderate wing of the spectrum of party voters.

Again, here, bi-polarization is a big problem.

For a party like the England Democrats there is still another place left from where to to scratch support, which is the abstentionists and blank voters, which I don't know the percentage in England.

At a glance, it looks to me that they have positioned themselves right in the middle of both the Tory and Labour parties, in a place where they can hope to gain some support from the moderate and discontent voters from the two main players. Their key for success in the center of the stage place may lie in playing right the card of English "identity".

On a quick look at their manifesto, their approach to the ethnic question is not as well defined as one would have expected. On the other hand, this is hardly surprising given the apparent attraction to a moderate public that the party wishes to make. While they reject multiculturalism, it is unclear if this rejection is accompanied by a will of ethnic nationalism or, on the contrary, of ethnic integration and assimilation. The manifesto points to the latter:

The People of England

The people of England are all those UK citizens who live in England. In electoral terms, the people of England are all those UK citizens who are on the electoral roll of an English constituency. The people of England therefore includes the people of many nations, all of whom share a common UK citizenship.

... Or to leaving the issue unresolved.

This is hardly surprising given the advanced stage of ethnic dissolution in England. Not talking of numbers of immigrants here, but of well established different ethnicities of generations long, as well as the offspring of mixed couples.

Even the BNP has come to realize of this after waking up to reality, however with little credibility and rather clumsy steps towards a change.

At any rate, I would say that the English Democrats can easily achieve, at the very least, what the British National Party hopes for and which is the support of a moderate voter and not the hooligan type classical of the BNP.

A small to medium break-in success of a party like this one would in the future, in my opinion, grow further easily through breaking bi-polarization and getting wider support from current Tory voters. But their difficult part at present lies in making this entry break-in.