british identity on the wane in England

No because we are not our parents.

Are you saying that someone born and raised in Birmingham can't be a brummie of their dad was a scouser?

However we know that will not happen certainly in Lammy's case as identity is paramount in the Labour ethos. The point I made earlier was that National identity in the report is confusing as it slips easily between English, English Nationals and English identity. It confuses the issues as regards National identity and English, which many regard as an ethnic group. This appears as just another attempt to gradually shift the English ethnic group out of existence as a matter of policy. If I was English I would be pissed off with it as it appears to have been policy for many years.

Then you are not paying attention. I am referring to the report and what it says and how it does not stick to National Identity as the subject it shifts to English English identity a though those are the same things, and they are not.

As regards  my son I refer you once again to Mandla v Dowell Lee as the basis for how ethnicity is defined in law by the Law Lords. I am not saying that you saying you are English is the problem I am saying that you saying you are English then claiming an additional  heritage over those who are only English does raise questions as to what your ethnic group is in the legal sense I have referred you to.

I think the problem is well explained by reference to the chap who I believe was last to start receiving a parliamentary salary after the last election.

You know, the one who chose to take the piss out of the need to pledge allegiance to the monarch to participate in his government as a member of it


I recall Tony Benn made much of the same. The difference is he made the oath without protest and THEN set about publicly seeking to replace it (unsuccessfully) from inside.

Hypocritical ? Perhaps. But he made no secret of his wish and furthermore refused to poison the tradition ...

I often point out, prior to 1971 and Ted Heath's immigration act, any child born to a woman who at the time her waters broke had one foot on soil claimed by the British empire in any capacity was by law declared a British subject, subject to the rule of the crown either in their capacity as Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or crown dependencys and territories, or through their Imperial Majesty's position as their Emperor / Empress.

It was possible to renounce that, most particularly where one's parents were not British Subjects and where they or you wished not to have dual citizenship.

However across the British Empire it was the case that one was indeed British, and entitled to the protections that provided, and secondly English, Welsh, Indian, whatever.

If course this pretty much vanished post WW2 as that annoying little man Ghsndi pressed for the end of the British Raj, with all that started.

I have no interest in being associated with a bunch of nonsense babbling burners of cottages and bombers of reservoirs which is why in answer to those Yougov polls I have said from day 1 I consider myself 100% British and 0% Welsh

I am fully aware to his places me in the same theoretical place as Anthem Choudhury

But he wishes to invite the destruction of the country. I merely wish to rule it.

You misrepresent me.

I never said I was ethnically English, I said my nationality was English despite not being 100% ethnically English, just like your son.

But you are going off on tangents and performing intellectual gymnastics to attempt to explain a glaring contradiction regarding me and your son.

Similarly Dan is also being inconsistent in terms of who he applies his argument to, which suggests to me that both arguments simply don't stand up.