AND HERE WE GO: THE CANCER OF NATIONALISM STARTS TO SPREAD

This is the first example of the kind of article I have been dreading, the hymn to Englishness and all that encompasses. This one comes from a 'life-long Labour supporter' - as if that makes it okay - and it is printed in the Independent, not normally the home of extreme views.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much everything this writer says about England and its proud traditions, creativity and strong identity, including the lively range of modern influences he cites. I am a proud Englishman and I celebrate this country every day in all its myriad variety but this article contains a few grains which will germinate and grow into pernicious weeds if allowed to continue.

First, the author gets in a few clear digs about Scotland: about how he is 'angry' that English students must pay fees at universities there, a mention of the incidence of 'sectarianism' which can sometimes be found in Scotland.

Second, the writer yearns to be proud of his country and how he longs to celebrate it with an anthem, an English equivalent of Burns Night, how we should have Jerusalem as the national anthem. Oh dear, this is the last recourse of the scoundrel writ large.

Again, I agree with the sentiments and I, too, object to many aspects of our relationship with Scotland such as the unfair constitutional settlement and the continued influence of Scottish MPs over my life but this is the start of a national challenge from England to the challenge laid down in Edinburgh by Pandora Salmond and the SNP.

I've said it before and I'll be hoarse by the time this debacle draws to a conclusion: the point about Englishness is that we have all these advantages but we don't need to trot them out every five minutes. The very essence of Englishness is a sense of quiet confidence in who we are. I don't need a flag introduced by the Normans to make me English. A beautiful piece of music like Jerusalem moves me but it is not necessary to make me English. For Heaven's sake, any country whose citizens can remain proud of its identity and existence even when our football team performs so lamentably at every international tournament has got to be described as being at ease with itself.

Pandora Salmond dreams of two countries living side by side in peace with a shared country and monarch with only a healthy rivalry between us. To use an English phrase from my home, London, he's having a laugh. When the trouble begins - be that at a football match, in a manufactured argument over Berwick, or with an attack on an innocent individual in one or other country we must all be absolutely crystal clear about where the blame lies: at the doors of the SNP and the home of Pandora Salmond. To make that stick we need to avoid playing his silly game.

PARK THE 'ISMS', THERE'S A DEAR

Coming into work yesterday morning I was gnashing my teeth at 'commentator' Neal Ascherson who called for the English to discover their nationalism and sense of identity. Oh dear, Neal, that's just what we don't need.

England is a settled country which is at ease with itself. It is big, diverse and, over many centuries, it has absorbed different cultures into its social make up, generally successfully, whatever some critics might say. The last thing we need is a homogeneous sense of identity. We need a shared pride in all the good things in England, not to mention a shared sense of anger at the things which do not work for us. Like devolution.

What we absolutely, categorically do not need is a sense of nationalism. Nationalism is divisive, aggressive and negative. It is a hatred of the 'other' and a statement of identity in response to the perception of a threat from that nebulous 'other'. [Philosophy lovers: this is Ernest Gellner's version of nationalism, which I subscribe to. Argue if you will but that would be tedious.]

What England needs - and has in buckets full in my experience - is patriotism, a sense of pride in itself and, crucially, a sense if its place in the union and the wider world. We have an infuriating football team, some of the world's finest athletes, THE world city - London - a landscape of sumptuous diversity, from the wealds of Kent to the mountains of the Lake District, history to gasp at, seaside to revel in, the best theatre in the world...you get the picture.

And of course we have the Olympics, which we won against the French. I say that because it matters. We have a rivalry with the French which extends to most levels - just look at the Prime Minister's disastrous recent foray into Europe. Our rivalry is intense and it can sometimes be personal, as it was at the European summit but to this humble blogger [that is an oxymoron, isn't it...] it is entirely acceptable and productive. We compete with the French but we also work closely with them and share much, such as energy and military intelligence, tactics and materiel. Over recent years I have visited France for family holidays and had a wonderful time. The French are almost all warm and welcoming to visitors and there is much to love about their country but that doesn't mean we can't both enjoy a productive rivalry. Both sides enjoy it and it is creative.

Identity does not need narrow SNP nationalism and the bizarre notion that standing alone on a smaller piece of rock is somehow going to enhance one’s nation. It simply needs the self-confident recognition of what the country and its people are. That doesn't take governments or borders, it just takes people. Scotland seems to do fine on its self-identity without the need for the impoverishment of its own government. If I were Scottish - and yes, like most people at the moment I can claim some heritage in that direction - I would be asking Pandora Salmond just what he hopes to achieve from his petty flag-waving apart from that.

We will all be diminished if the union breaks up but if it does I expect England to get along just fine without the pettiness of nationalism. We don't need it - and neither does Scotland. The union works. Let’s hope that nationalists like Pandora Salmond and Neal Ascherson eventually give up and scurry off to shout at passers-by, leaving the rest of us alone to get along with life and a celebration of who we are, not a hatred of others.

IS IT ME OR IS THERE A THEME DEVELOPING?

The poll to be published in the Telegraph today encapsulates this Englishman's attitude to the Scottish referendum. Making grand assumptions from the poll and using my own opinions as a reasonable guide (this is my blog, after all), the poll seems to show first that English people are generally - and genuinely - relaxed about the whole issue of Scottish nationalism as it is simply not relevant to England day to day. English people also believe that Scotland would be worse off if independent.

Perhaps most crucially in terms of the future arguments with the nationalists, English people would vote for Scottish independence if given the choice.

What all this tells me is that English people like and support the union and are against a break up but it seems to me that there is also very strong opposition to the slow ebb of powers to Scotland which will occur as the nationalists seek more and more baubies in return for staying in the union. To hideously misquote someone famous, if they be so like to go, let them do so and be quick about it. However, if they wish to stay, great but let's make sure we all get fair shares of power, responsibility and control over our respective countries within the union - and let's all get on with day to day life and leave the petty squabbles behind.

And there's still no word on Berwick-upon-Tweed from anyone...

PERSPECTIVE - AND HOPEFULLY ONE OR TWO REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL

Question Time on the BBC was a good one this time around, with a heavyweight panel offering some good comments and some very lively and informative audience participation. Even John Prescott managed to make sense and Brian Paddick rocked, as a policeman who has worked in some tough parts of London and who can speak with authority on such matters. It is frustrating that all debate on the criminal looting will not be this interesting or useful.

As it ended I was reminded of the recent comments from countries including Libya, Iran, Russia and China on the looting, condemning the British system and government and calling for wholesale change.

Well, let's analyse that in microcosm. Which of the above countries would bring together five lively and informed commentators from different political perspectives to debate recent traumatic events in their countries? For that matter, which of the above countries has a viable and active opposition which, for all its myriad faults (Eds Milispoons and Balls for starters), I would defend to the death as an essential element of our democracy? Which of the above countries would allow such free debate - much of it quite rightly critical of the government - among its citizenry on mainstream television?

The past week has shown that England has problems a-plenty and that we are by no means perfect but seriously folks, Iran a paragon of free speech? A country where the police force democracy protesters to drink excrement? Libya a standard bearer for human rights, where citizens who disagree with the lunatic General clinging on to power are tortured or killed, along with their families. Russia, struggling to enter the 21st century and good luck to them but seriously, give up the lectures to us on freedom, tovarisch. China, an emerging global power which is so strong and successful that it allows no dissent from the rantings of a 200 year old German and a murdering dictator.

We have much to think about in Britain after recent events but this Englishman would not trade troubled but free, democratic and relatively prosperous Britain with any one of the above countries for all the tea in, well, China.

WAY TO GO, ENGLAND

Here's to England's cricketers who stuffed the Aussies in the Ashes. Our cricketers played with style and passion and smashed Australia with three innings defeats.

What do you call an Australian with a bottle of Champagne?
A waiter.

ST GEORGE? BLOOMING FOREIGNER COMING OVER HERE AND TAKING OUR NATIONAL SYMBOLS!

Here's a note of controversy for the World Cup. Despite having changed my website to reflect the national hysteria surrounding our bunch of overpaid hospital cases I can't get away from the thought that our national flag, colours and Patron Saint were all introduced by the Normans as they sought to change the traditions of this country root and branch.

Now that's not necessarily a bad thing and only a fool would declare that our country is timeless and that our traditions go back into the mists of time. They don't: somewhere along the line of our turbulent and often bloody history someone will have decided to have London as the capital, wear tartan, adopt the Indian rose as our national flower or impose Turkish knight St George as our patron saint.

That's the trouble with St George: his reputation is at best dodgy as he was apparently a bit of a murdering thug, he is the patron saint of half a dozen other countries, he never even visited England and, I have discovered just recently, he is actually the patron saint of England and Wales. That last bit's fine by me but the Welsh already have a patron saint of their own so why can't we?

Before St George was grafted onto the national psyche we had Edmund, a pukka (Indian word...) English (born in Germany) martyr murdered by the Vikings in Suffolk. Between Edmund and George we had Edward the Confessor, King of England, sponsor of the original Westminster Abbey and - unfortunately - promoter of one Guillaume the Bastard as a future ruler of our sceptr'd isle and the man who ushered in 200 years of brutal oppression of the rank and file of England - that's me and possibly you, in modern terms.

None of them is ideal but at least the 'Two Teds' actually spent some time here and one performed that fabulous trick of the truly iconic in getting himself killed in dramatic circumstances. If Athena had existed back in the 10th century there'd have been a poster of Edmund on the wall of every youth, sitting astride a horse looking troubled...

The key problem with either Edmund or Edward is that neither had a proper flag or standard so we haven't quite got the colours. I've seen one which is blue and yellow which would be quite nice. Just think, England football shirts could be sold by Ikea in future. I bet they'd be cheaper than the overpriced ones we have today. We could return to the ancient tradition of painting ourselves blue before going into contests. The tabloids could be full of terrible puns around the word 'woad' ('End of the Woad for Fabio', 'Woadful display from Green', etc, etc ad nauseaum).

I don't suppose it will catch on but it might be worth reflecting on precisely why we do what we do, if only so we don't take any of it too seriously. Anyway, roll on Friday and Algeria and Cry God for England, Wayne and St Edmund!

A CHALLENGE TO YOU IF YOU ARE SCOTTISH

As the World Cup approaches and the flags come out across England, we face the niggling annoyance of a whole section of Britain actively demonstrating their antipathy towards us through their senseless opposition to our football team. This happens at every sporting event so it is no surprise and such sporting hostility can be a source of fun. The difference with regard to Scotland and England is that the cause of this antipathy is ancient history.

This overt hostility to England is simply out of date and ignores a range of straightforward truths which suggest a somewhat skewed relationship in favour of Scotland, rather than supporting the myth of the English somehow being responsible for the various ills which many people beyond Berwick are convinced afflict their country.

In a conversation today a Scottish acquaintance was asked if anything special would be happening today on what is the anniversary of the birth of Robert the Bruce? Their response was a jokey but still fervent hope that the border would be closed. That kind of comment just annoys me. Why should a Scot living in England with absolutely no demonstrable disadvantages to their position and in the light of many advantages have such hostility to my country? This is tantamount to casual racism.

Given the fact that Britain has had a Scottish dominated government for 13 years, that Scotland has more powers and democracy than England, that Scottish MPs get to tell the English how to live and that in return the English are expected to pay far over the odds for Scotland, and given the fact that Scotland's banks were rescued by primarily English taxpayers, this seems somewhat churlish and ignorant of quite how well Scotland does from the union.

The surprise for me is that we in England don't particularly care about any of this and we generally rub along quite happily with the situation without treating these various issues as problems. I suspect that that must really annoy the Scots.

I remain 100% committed to a binding referendum on Scottish independence but my one condition would be that it should be a nationwide referendum, from Penzance to Peebles. I remain convinced that our Scottish neighbours would be quite uncomfortably surprised at the outcome of such a referendum but they would almost certainly get what they wished for which, as anyone who knows the old saw will realise, may not be the best outcome for Scotland.

For the record, I am also fully supportive of the union and I believe it to be a good thing for all of us. England benefits from this union as much as the other participants but any such union requires active and positive participation from all its members. The long-standing Liberal Democrat policy of a federal Britain remains an ideal aspiration for our country which could reduce much of this resentment and even up the huge political imbalance which is currently skewed in favour of Scotland.

Here's my challenge then: if you are Scottish and reading this blog, feel free to post a message of support for the England team in South Africa. If you feel you are unable to, can I suggest that you reflect on whether that is a mature response to our ongoing, positive relationship which the union embodies in the 21st century.

However, if you do, my thanks and my very best wishes. And here's to a 'Great Britain' football team for 2012.