What do you think?
Rate this book
How Britain Ends: English Nationalism and the Rebirth of Four Nations
A thoughtful, articulate and important book about the rise of English nationalism and the impending breakup of the United Kingdom from one of the finest BBC journalists of the last twenty years.
How Britain Ends is a book about history, but also about the strange, complicated identity of Britishness. In the past, it was possible to live with delightful confusion: one could be English, or British, Scottish or Irish and a citizen/subject of the United Kingdom (or Great Britain). For years that state has been what Gavin Esler calls a 'secret federation', but without the explicit federal arrangements that allow Germany or the USA to survive.
Now the archaic state, which doesn't have a written constitution, is coming under terrible strain. The English revolt against Europe is also a revolt against the awkward squads of the Scottish and Irish, and most English conservatives would be happy to get rid of Northern Ireland and Scotland as the price of getting Brexit done. If no productive trade deal with the EU can be agreed, the pressures to declare Scottish independence and to push for a border poll that would unite Ireland will be irresistible.
Can England and Wales find a way of dealing with the state's new place in the world? What constitutional, federal arrangements might prevent the disintegration of the British state, which has survived in its present form for 400 years?
How Britain Ends is a book about history, but also about the strange, complicated identity of Britishness. In the past, it was possible to live with delightful confusion: one could be English, or British, Scottish or Irish and a citizen/subject of the United Kingdom (or Great Britain). For years that state has been what Gavin Esler calls a 'secret federation', but without the explicit federal arrangements that allow Germany or the USA to survive.
Now the archaic state, which doesn't have a written constitution, is coming under terrible strain. The English revolt against Europe is also a revolt against the awkward squads of the Scottish and Irish, and most English conservatives would be happy to get rid of Northern Ireland and Scotland as the price of getting Brexit done. If no productive trade deal with the EU can be agreed, the pressures to declare Scottish independence and to push for a border poll that would unite Ireland will be irresistible.
Can England and Wales find a way of dealing with the state's new place in the world? What constitutional, federal arrangements might prevent the disintegration of the British state, which has survived in its present form for 400 years?
320 pages, Hardcover
First published February 4, 2021
140 people are currently reading
552 people want to read
About the author
Gavin Esler
14 books18 followersGavin Esler is an award winning television and radio broadcaster, novelist and journalist. He is the author of five novels and two non-fiction books, The United States of Anger, and most recently Lessons from the Top, a study of how leaders tell stories to make other people follow them. It’s based on personal encounters with a wide variety of leaders, from Bill Clinton and Angela Merkel to Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and even cultural leaders such as Dolly Parton.
Reviewers have been full of praise for Esler’s fiction and story-telling abilities. The writer Bernard Cornwell said his novels are "made luminous with wisdom, sympathy and story telling." The Guardian commented that Esler's fiction displays "undoubted sympathy for the human condition and a burning anger, a genuine lyricism, a quick sensitivity and a real understanding of other people." The Financial Times said Esler's stories of people in power and the compromises they are forced to make, shows that he "understands the political beast better than anyone."
Gavin EslerGavin Esler was born in Glasgow, and brought up in Edinburgh and Northern Ireland. His family are descended from German Protestant refugees who fled to safety in Scotland during the religious wars of the early 17th Century. He spent the first three years of his life living with his parents, grandmother and aunts in a three-bedroom council house in Clydebank. The family moved to Edinburgh and Gavin won a scholarship to George Heriot's School. He planned to study medicine at Edinburgh University and then, to the relief of patients everywhere, made an abrupt switch to English, American and, eventually, Irish literature. After he finished his post-graduate studies he was offered a job on The Scotsman in Edinburgh but turned it down as likely to be a bit dull, preferring instead The Belfast Telegraph. He moved on to the BBC in Belfast during some of the worst of "the Troubles," and got to know leaders of the IRA and other Republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. On one occasion the leader of a loyalist organisation introduced himself to Esler with the memorable words: “I am speaking to you as someone deeply involved in violence.” It turned out to be an accurate description.
His investigative work on the wrongful convictions of Giuseppe Conlon and his son Gerry led to a campaign which eventually overturned the convictions of the so-called “Guildford Four” and “Maguire Seven” -- innocent Irishmen and women convicted of bombing offences on the basis on non-existent or unreliable “evidence.” Their stories eventually became the basis of the film, In the Name of the Father.
Esler moved on to become the BBC's Chief North America Correspondent, based in Washington and covering the Bush and Clinton White House. He visited 48 of the 50 states but somehow missed out on Wisconsin and North Dakota. His first encounter with Bill Clinton in 1991 led him to believe that the then Governor of Arkansas might indeed become President of the United States some day - a belief somewhat dented when a Democratic party official described Clinton to Esler as “Oh, you mean Governor Zipper Problem.”
He then reported from countries as diverse as China, Peru, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Russia, Jordan, Iran, Saudia Arabia and from the Aleutian Islands, as well as all across Europe. He won a Royal Television Society award for a TV documentary about Alaska and a Sony Gold award for a BBC radio investigation into the case of Sami al Hajj, who was detained without charge in Guantanamo bay, but released shortly after the radio programme was broadcast.
Over the past two decades Gavin Esler has interviewed world leaders ranging from Mrs Thatcher, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, King Abdullah of Jordan and President Chirac to President Clinton, President Carter, Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega, Ed Miliband and Israel's Shimon Peres. In the arts and culture programmes he anchors for BBC World he has als
Reviewers have been full of praise for Esler’s fiction and story-telling abilities. The writer Bernard Cornwell said his novels are "made luminous with wisdom, sympathy and story telling." The Guardian commented that Esler's fiction displays "undoubted sympathy for the human condition and a burning anger, a genuine lyricism, a quick sensitivity and a real understanding of other people." The Financial Times said Esler's stories of people in power and the compromises they are forced to make, shows that he "understands the political beast better than anyone."
Gavin EslerGavin Esler was born in Glasgow, and brought up in Edinburgh and Northern Ireland. His family are descended from German Protestant refugees who fled to safety in Scotland during the religious wars of the early 17th Century. He spent the first three years of his life living with his parents, grandmother and aunts in a three-bedroom council house in Clydebank. The family moved to Edinburgh and Gavin won a scholarship to George Heriot's School. He planned to study medicine at Edinburgh University and then, to the relief of patients everywhere, made an abrupt switch to English, American and, eventually, Irish literature. After he finished his post-graduate studies he was offered a job on The Scotsman in Edinburgh but turned it down as likely to be a bit dull, preferring instead The Belfast Telegraph. He moved on to the BBC in Belfast during some of the worst of "the Troubles," and got to know leaders of the IRA and other Republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. On one occasion the leader of a loyalist organisation introduced himself to Esler with the memorable words: “I am speaking to you as someone deeply involved in violence.” It turned out to be an accurate description.
His investigative work on the wrongful convictions of Giuseppe Conlon and his son Gerry led to a campaign which eventually overturned the convictions of the so-called “Guildford Four” and “Maguire Seven” -- innocent Irishmen and women convicted of bombing offences on the basis on non-existent or unreliable “evidence.” Their stories eventually became the basis of the film, In the Name of the Father.
Esler moved on to become the BBC's Chief North America Correspondent, based in Washington and covering the Bush and Clinton White House. He visited 48 of the 50 states but somehow missed out on Wisconsin and North Dakota. His first encounter with Bill Clinton in 1991 led him to believe that the then Governor of Arkansas might indeed become President of the United States some day - a belief somewhat dented when a Democratic party official described Clinton to Esler as “Oh, you mean Governor Zipper Problem.”
He then reported from countries as diverse as China, Peru, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Russia, Jordan, Iran, Saudia Arabia and from the Aleutian Islands, as well as all across Europe. He won a Royal Television Society award for a TV documentary about Alaska and a Sony Gold award for a BBC radio investigation into the case of Sami al Hajj, who was detained without charge in Guantanamo bay, but released shortly after the radio programme was broadcast.
Over the past two decades Gavin Esler has interviewed world leaders ranging from Mrs Thatcher, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, King Abdullah of Jordan and President Chirac to President Clinton, President Carter, Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega, Ed Miliband and Israel's Shimon Peres. In the arts and culture programmes he anchors for BBC World he has als
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
February 19, 2021
There is a meme on the internet that showing which parts of the country comprise the alternative names for these islands; Great Britain, The British Isles, The United Kingdom. It was meant as a humorous guide for those trying to work out how this little part of the globe could have so many names depending on how you wanted to understand it. But in that humour is a serious question as to the makeup of our country and the fundamental laws that have held us together and the possible futures we have with the rise of English nationalism.
To answer the question; where are we going and how are we going to get there, is pretty complicated. The lack of a written constitution means that where other countries have clear and unequivocal limits and can work within them, we have a jumble of partly submerged laws and precedents that define who we are. In this murky definition of our country, there are very few people who actually know their way around it and the implications of any form of splintering following Brexit.
One man who is attempting to answer this question is Gavin Esler. He has lived in all the capital cities of the nations that make up our country and in his role as a journalist, he is well placed to ask the probing questions about the state of the state. To learn about how we got to where we are at the moment, first you need to understand our particular and peculiar history. Since the Normans invaded almost 1000 years ago, we have had a strong feudal society, it has been eroded to a certain extent and there have been some power transfers from crown to other positions, but the fundamental principles that existed then still exist now if you know where to look in our state structures. We have seconded the other nations in our Isles to be part of the union and whilst there have always been some separation and nationalistic elements in each of the individual countries, we have managed to stay and for the past 400 years have (mostly) acted as one country.
That started to change in 2014 though with the Scottish Independence Referendum and it was won narrowly by those wishing to remain a part of the Union. Part of what helped that was the promise that the UK would remain part of the EU. Two years later, partly as a response to the rise of UKIP in local elections and to placate a section of the Conservative party that had lurched to the right, the Prime Minister of the time called a Referendum about our place in the EU. We voted to leave by the narrow margin of 52% versus 48% and from that moment on the union was under threat. In Esler’s eyes, this was the point where the rise of English nationalism became a real threat to the union rather than just a low-level concern.
In this book, he lays out the reason behind why he thinks English nationalism has more of a chance of breaking up the UK than previous attempts by Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalists. He looks at how the Conservative have moved further to the right and to a greater extent have tried to absorb the votes that previously went to UKIP and have co-opted nationalism as well as taking deep draughts from the poisoned well that is nostalgia. They are not huge fans of devolved power to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, and they have been seeking ways that they are trying to recover some of the powers that have been lost. The concentration of power in Westminster is quite acute, and what happens there feels remote and irrelevant to most people outside of the London bubble, where being able to make decisions that are relevant at a local level are important to a lot of people. It feels like a democratic deficit and it isn’t going away.
He has some sensible suggestion on how we can avoid what is feeling inevitable at the moment, including repairing some of the damage done by Brexit, reforms and more devolution of power to the individual nations. It all seems sensible and rational stuff coming from a guy who has no political axe to grind too.
This is not an easy book to like, it is not an easy subject after all, but I thought that the way that Esler has laid out the book and sought to find a deep understanding as to how and why we have reached this point in our collective nation’s history has been well written and thought through. Might not be the most comfortable of reads for some people, but that seems a good reason to read it.
To answer the question; where are we going and how are we going to get there, is pretty complicated. The lack of a written constitution means that where other countries have clear and unequivocal limits and can work within them, we have a jumble of partly submerged laws and precedents that define who we are. In this murky definition of our country, there are very few people who actually know their way around it and the implications of any form of splintering following Brexit.
One man who is attempting to answer this question is Gavin Esler. He has lived in all the capital cities of the nations that make up our country and in his role as a journalist, he is well placed to ask the probing questions about the state of the state. To learn about how we got to where we are at the moment, first you need to understand our particular and peculiar history. Since the Normans invaded almost 1000 years ago, we have had a strong feudal society, it has been eroded to a certain extent and there have been some power transfers from crown to other positions, but the fundamental principles that existed then still exist now if you know where to look in our state structures. We have seconded the other nations in our Isles to be part of the union and whilst there have always been some separation and nationalistic elements in each of the individual countries, we have managed to stay and for the past 400 years have (mostly) acted as one country.
That started to change in 2014 though with the Scottish Independence Referendum and it was won narrowly by those wishing to remain a part of the Union. Part of what helped that was the promise that the UK would remain part of the EU. Two years later, partly as a response to the rise of UKIP in local elections and to placate a section of the Conservative party that had lurched to the right, the Prime Minister of the time called a Referendum about our place in the EU. We voted to leave by the narrow margin of 52% versus 48% and from that moment on the union was under threat. In Esler’s eyes, this was the point where the rise of English nationalism became a real threat to the union rather than just a low-level concern.
In this book, he lays out the reason behind why he thinks English nationalism has more of a chance of breaking up the UK than previous attempts by Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalists. He looks at how the Conservative have moved further to the right and to a greater extent have tried to absorb the votes that previously went to UKIP and have co-opted nationalism as well as taking deep draughts from the poisoned well that is nostalgia. They are not huge fans of devolved power to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, and they have been seeking ways that they are trying to recover some of the powers that have been lost. The concentration of power in Westminster is quite acute, and what happens there feels remote and irrelevant to most people outside of the London bubble, where being able to make decisions that are relevant at a local level are important to a lot of people. It feels like a democratic deficit and it isn’t going away.
He has some sensible suggestion on how we can avoid what is feeling inevitable at the moment, including repairing some of the damage done by Brexit, reforms and more devolution of power to the individual nations. It all seems sensible and rational stuff coming from a guy who has no political axe to grind too.
This is not an easy book to like, it is not an easy subject after all, but I thought that the way that Esler has laid out the book and sought to find a deep understanding as to how and why we have reached this point in our collective nation’s history has been well written and thought through. Might not be the most comfortable of reads for some people, but that seems a good reason to read it.
November 18, 2021
I found this to be an extremely disappointing book. It contains a couple of good ideas, and a whole plethora of bad ones. It's not particularly well written and - despite the author parading his Scottishness and Irishness - it suffers from the worst sort of English disease - condescension.
The two good ideas are fairly simple to grasp. First, that an aggressive English nationalism is causing strains upon the United Kingdom, that could well lead to the Union to break up. Second, that the United Kingdom consists of five nations rather than the four to which we are accustomed. The author makes a case for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (the customary four), along with Greater London as the fifth nation. There is a good case for this.
However, the two good parts don't quite tally together. It is not explained why a nationalist England, which dominates UK politics, should allow the minority parts - especially Scotland - to seek their own independence. The question is likely to come to a head over Scottish independence, but it is hard to see how it could become resolved without the explicit agreement of the English nationalists in the Westminster Parliament. The author fails to explain how any of this will happen if the Westminster government simply blocks any progress in that direction. This question led me to believe that the author has a bit of a gap in understanding his subject.
He makes no attempt to conceal that he is a Remainer, turned Rejoiner. Whilst many have moved on from that question, the author hasn't. This is where his condescension shows through. He fails to understand the emotional base of the Leave vote and refuses to accept that his cause lost the day. In essence, he is not a democrat when the vote goes against him.
Part of the problem, in my view, is that he comes from too narrow a world. If there ever was an example of the credentialed, urban, liberal elite, the author provides it. It shines through the work and gives rise to a number of really bad ideas. For me, the three largest bad ideas are electoral reform, federalism, and constitutionalism.
The author advocates electoral reform to deal with what he perceives as an undemocratic electoral system. It can't be argued that the current first-past-the-post system does mean that a majority of seats can be won by a minority of votes. However, the author is over-clever in the system he advocates ad it fails the test that it must be understandable by the vast majority of voters, If the electorate cannot see a direct connection between who they vote for and who they elect, the system will son come into disrepute. The UK had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011 and decided to leave things as they are. The author conveniently forgets this, and in his arrogance suggests that we vote again because we got the wrong answer.
The author posits the break up of the UK as a given, and then asks how we can forestall or avoid this. His solution is a form of federalism, such as the one seen in Germany. I can see how this would work in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but what about Greater London? Would London be an equal partner? If London were to remain in England, would there be pressure for greater independence? Come to that, would Orkney be happier with rule from Edinburgh? Might they prefer Oslo? There are rather a large number of gaps is the federal solution advocated by the author. He fails to make a convincing case for this.
The author sees many of the problems in the UK resulting from the lack of a written constitution. He makes a good point that the lack of a written document creates the certainty needed for constitutional affairs. However, he fails to appreciate that the lack of a written constitution allows in the UK a degree of flexibility that has been lacking elsewhere. He fails to appreciate that the number of violent revolutions in the UK is far fewer than in continental Europe precisely for this reason. The British way is one of reform.
Ad therein lies the rub. Britain is not currently as the author would like it. The author has tried the electoral route to effect change and has failed. By a big margin. He is now arguing for change, but with not very much success. He hasn't sat back to think why that might be. Just blaming the electorate for being old, stupid, and uneducated doesn't really win him many friends. Let's hope that he simply remains in obscurity declaiming to anyone who listens. I certainly won't.
The two good ideas are fairly simple to grasp. First, that an aggressive English nationalism is causing strains upon the United Kingdom, that could well lead to the Union to break up. Second, that the United Kingdom consists of five nations rather than the four to which we are accustomed. The author makes a case for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (the customary four), along with Greater London as the fifth nation. There is a good case for this.
However, the two good parts don't quite tally together. It is not explained why a nationalist England, which dominates UK politics, should allow the minority parts - especially Scotland - to seek their own independence. The question is likely to come to a head over Scottish independence, but it is hard to see how it could become resolved without the explicit agreement of the English nationalists in the Westminster Parliament. The author fails to explain how any of this will happen if the Westminster government simply blocks any progress in that direction. This question led me to believe that the author has a bit of a gap in understanding his subject.
He makes no attempt to conceal that he is a Remainer, turned Rejoiner. Whilst many have moved on from that question, the author hasn't. This is where his condescension shows through. He fails to understand the emotional base of the Leave vote and refuses to accept that his cause lost the day. In essence, he is not a democrat when the vote goes against him.
Part of the problem, in my view, is that he comes from too narrow a world. If there ever was an example of the credentialed, urban, liberal elite, the author provides it. It shines through the work and gives rise to a number of really bad ideas. For me, the three largest bad ideas are electoral reform, federalism, and constitutionalism.
The author advocates electoral reform to deal with what he perceives as an undemocratic electoral system. It can't be argued that the current first-past-the-post system does mean that a majority of seats can be won by a minority of votes. However, the author is over-clever in the system he advocates ad it fails the test that it must be understandable by the vast majority of voters, If the electorate cannot see a direct connection between who they vote for and who they elect, the system will son come into disrepute. The UK had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011 and decided to leave things as they are. The author conveniently forgets this, and in his arrogance suggests that we vote again because we got the wrong answer.
The author posits the break up of the UK as a given, and then asks how we can forestall or avoid this. His solution is a form of federalism, such as the one seen in Germany. I can see how this would work in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but what about Greater London? Would London be an equal partner? If London were to remain in England, would there be pressure for greater independence? Come to that, would Orkney be happier with rule from Edinburgh? Might they prefer Oslo? There are rather a large number of gaps is the federal solution advocated by the author. He fails to make a convincing case for this.
The author sees many of the problems in the UK resulting from the lack of a written constitution. He makes a good point that the lack of a written document creates the certainty needed for constitutional affairs. However, he fails to appreciate that the lack of a written constitution allows in the UK a degree of flexibility that has been lacking elsewhere. He fails to appreciate that the number of violent revolutions in the UK is far fewer than in continental Europe precisely for this reason. The British way is one of reform.
Ad therein lies the rub. Britain is not currently as the author would like it. The author has tried the electoral route to effect change and has failed. By a big margin. He is now arguing for change, but with not very much success. He hasn't sat back to think why that might be. Just blaming the electorate for being old, stupid, and uneducated doesn't really win him many friends. Let's hope that he simply remains in obscurity declaiming to anyone who listens. I certainly won't.
August 8, 2021
Arrogant and poorly researched rant hiding reform
Gavin Esler is failed politician rejected by the electorate he despises and very well connected. With a cavalier disregard for truth and the snobbish wish to see the best in anti-english rhetoric, his 300 page rage against Boris Johnson hides a plea for a better form of union. Smug and self satisfied, he is unaware that his appt and disregard for those who disagree with him makes him a poor journalist and a worse politician.
Gavin Esler is failed politician rejected by the electorate he despises and very well connected. With a cavalier disregard for truth and the snobbish wish to see the best in anti-english rhetoric, his 300 page rage against Boris Johnson hides a plea for a better form of union. Smug and self satisfied, he is unaware that his appt and disregard for those who disagree with him makes him a poor journalist and a worse politician.
July 17, 2023
This is a fascinating book written by a well-respected and established journalist who has his own roots in three out of the four nations that make up the so-called 'United' Kingdom. That the kingdom is anything but united is the very point of Esler's book. He sees the end of the union coming soon. He's not the only political commentator who thinks this.
Much of this prediction is, of course, centred around Brexit - which immediately raises the heckles of all Brexshitters and not a few of them have given poor customer reviews on various sites. Even the more learned and academically talented of those still reject any criticism of Brexit and its effects and go for the tired and boring personal attacks on the author rather than present any reasoned defence of a different position. For everyone else, this is a really thought-provoking book.
Disclaimer: in case you hadn't already guessed it, I am definitely a remoaner/rejoiner (yes, I like remoaner because I bloody well will moan to all those who voted leave about what they've done to this country and no, I don't forgive or forget). But while I will point the finger of blame strongly out of a sense of justice, I gave up on this silly English nation years ago, so I'm not really a staunch remainer. The words 'petard' and 'hoist' come firmly to mind in this respect. I couldn't care less what happens to us all now - I'm just permanently angry. That said, I am confident that, eventually, it will all settle down and our economy and life will improve - but only back to some form of what it was before 2016; it's an absolute shot in the foot - or perhaps even the knee or thigh. We'll always limp, but things have a habit of balancing out eventually.
This is all fine as a background, but while much of Esler's hypothesis rests on the results of Brexit and the deep divisions it has caused, it is only as the 'straw that breaks' as far as Esler is concerned. The damage to the union has been going on for decades and even centuries, he claims. I don't think he's wrong.
Esler presents a strong argument for claiming that nationalism is behind the current surge in the direction of both Northern Irish and Scots wanting independence (and arguably Welsh too). But it isn't their nationalism he's talking about: it's English nationalism. He's absolutely on the nail here. The English have never given up their colonial instincts and superior elitism. We like to pretend we're the fairest, most welcoming, tolerant and non-judgemental of people. The truth is, we're anything but those things and we've always told ourselves these lies. Esler points out that this extends as far as using the term 'British'. There's nothing British about being British. We mean English almost every single time and the other nations are, understandably, getting annoyed about it. Who can blame them when we have such abhorrent extremist behaviours which are now so commonplace white English people don't bother to hide it much any longer? We really don't represent who the Scots, Welsh or Irish are. We never have.
Esler is a writer like Harari, for me: he writes what I was already thinking but hadn't put into words in such succinct ways. For years I've called myself English first, British second. Actually, scratch that. I've called myself English first, European second, father, husband, writer, teacher...almost anything else next...and British last of all as, technically, I can't avoid it as a truth at least legally. But I've never felt it exists in reality. Esler gives it a name.
Given what I've been saying it may seem odd that I call myself English first - as those that do are almost inevitably nationalists. But I hold it as a truth. There is no 'British' any any moral or ethnological way. I'm English and I like being English for the few - but very special - things that make us so (some of which we do indeed share with our neighbours). I like English pubs. I like our vast countryside. I like our classical music and our great writers. I like Wimbledon. I like how we queue! I LOVE our sense of humour. All this is good stuff. I just don't like our 'we're better than everyone else and we're the only ones who are hard-working and honest' crap we believe to our very core. For Esler, everyone is fed up of it and it will see the breakdown of the union. Brexit makes it no longer a viable option to stay together. Indeed, the Irish border problem is unlikely to ever be solved without a united Ireland.
But, in the final analysis, I think Esler it wrong. I don't think the union is going to come to an end - not unless something even more catastrophic comes along. And that's because, despite everything he says being really very true, he's not accounted for the one thing we might just call 'British': inertia.
We claim a history that avoided bloody revolutions (it's not entirely true either but lets roll with it for now); when the French and Russians etc. were all busy killing each other, the 'British' made changes largely peacefully and kept a government together than can trace a recognisable form back to at least Elizabethan England, if not before. Why? I think because of inertia. We will moan and complain about things changing and/or being bad (the two are often confused) but we will tolerate them for a considerable length of time. It takes a lot to push us to the edge.
It is the same now. Brexit, effectively, happened seven years ago at the time of writing. It came into force properly two years ago. We've gone though multiple prime ministers and even the Scottish parliament has had a changeover with Sturgeon's reputation currently in tatters. As the face of the Scottish referendum, this means the taste for independence has diminished. We're going through the worst financial crisis since 2008 and we never actually got over the last one. More than decade of tory misrule - some of it borderline criminal - and we still haven't rioted on the streets, metaphorically or otherwise. The Brits grumble and moan, but we don't do anything about it. That's exactly what I'm doing now. And once finished with this, I'll go make myself a cup of tea and be satisfied (that's another English thing I like!).
As I said earlier, I think things will balance out. We will come out of our near-recession. Businesses will find new ways to survive in a post-Brexit world. The economy will, eventually, stagger into something half decent. And with each passing day, week, month and year, we're less and less likely to think things are bad enough to warrant splitting up. It really will take a return to 'the troubles' or something of that ilk to threaten that. Without a crisis (and I mean a real whopper because we're all already totally 'crisised out') the union will stagger on. Better the devil you know and all that - even if he's white and English.
Much of this prediction is, of course, centred around Brexit - which immediately raises the heckles of all Brexshitters and not a few of them have given poor customer reviews on various sites. Even the more learned and academically talented of those still reject any criticism of Brexit and its effects and go for the tired and boring personal attacks on the author rather than present any reasoned defence of a different position. For everyone else, this is a really thought-provoking book.
Disclaimer: in case you hadn't already guessed it, I am definitely a remoaner/rejoiner (yes, I like remoaner because I bloody well will moan to all those who voted leave about what they've done to this country and no, I don't forgive or forget). But while I will point the finger of blame strongly out of a sense of justice, I gave up on this silly English nation years ago, so I'm not really a staunch remainer. The words 'petard' and 'hoist' come firmly to mind in this respect. I couldn't care less what happens to us all now - I'm just permanently angry. That said, I am confident that, eventually, it will all settle down and our economy and life will improve - but only back to some form of what it was before 2016; it's an absolute shot in the foot - or perhaps even the knee or thigh. We'll always limp, but things have a habit of balancing out eventually.
This is all fine as a background, but while much of Esler's hypothesis rests on the results of Brexit and the deep divisions it has caused, it is only as the 'straw that breaks' as far as Esler is concerned. The damage to the union has been going on for decades and even centuries, he claims. I don't think he's wrong.
Esler presents a strong argument for claiming that nationalism is behind the current surge in the direction of both Northern Irish and Scots wanting independence (and arguably Welsh too). But it isn't their nationalism he's talking about: it's English nationalism. He's absolutely on the nail here. The English have never given up their colonial instincts and superior elitism. We like to pretend we're the fairest, most welcoming, tolerant and non-judgemental of people. The truth is, we're anything but those things and we've always told ourselves these lies. Esler points out that this extends as far as using the term 'British'. There's nothing British about being British. We mean English almost every single time and the other nations are, understandably, getting annoyed about it. Who can blame them when we have such abhorrent extremist behaviours which are now so commonplace white English people don't bother to hide it much any longer? We really don't represent who the Scots, Welsh or Irish are. We never have.
Esler is a writer like Harari, for me: he writes what I was already thinking but hadn't put into words in such succinct ways. For years I've called myself English first, British second. Actually, scratch that. I've called myself English first, European second, father, husband, writer, teacher...almost anything else next...and British last of all as, technically, I can't avoid it as a truth at least legally. But I've never felt it exists in reality. Esler gives it a name.
Given what I've been saying it may seem odd that I call myself English first - as those that do are almost inevitably nationalists. But I hold it as a truth. There is no 'British' any any moral or ethnological way. I'm English and I like being English for the few - but very special - things that make us so (some of which we do indeed share with our neighbours). I like English pubs. I like our vast countryside. I like our classical music and our great writers. I like Wimbledon. I like how we queue! I LOVE our sense of humour. All this is good stuff. I just don't like our 'we're better than everyone else and we're the only ones who are hard-working and honest' crap we believe to our very core. For Esler, everyone is fed up of it and it will see the breakdown of the union. Brexit makes it no longer a viable option to stay together. Indeed, the Irish border problem is unlikely to ever be solved without a united Ireland.
But, in the final analysis, I think Esler it wrong. I don't think the union is going to come to an end - not unless something even more catastrophic comes along. And that's because, despite everything he says being really very true, he's not accounted for the one thing we might just call 'British': inertia.
We claim a history that avoided bloody revolutions (it's not entirely true either but lets roll with it for now); when the French and Russians etc. were all busy killing each other, the 'British' made changes largely peacefully and kept a government together than can trace a recognisable form back to at least Elizabethan England, if not before. Why? I think because of inertia. We will moan and complain about things changing and/or being bad (the two are often confused) but we will tolerate them for a considerable length of time. It takes a lot to push us to the edge.
It is the same now. Brexit, effectively, happened seven years ago at the time of writing. It came into force properly two years ago. We've gone though multiple prime ministers and even the Scottish parliament has had a changeover with Sturgeon's reputation currently in tatters. As the face of the Scottish referendum, this means the taste for independence has diminished. We're going through the worst financial crisis since 2008 and we never actually got over the last one. More than decade of tory misrule - some of it borderline criminal - and we still haven't rioted on the streets, metaphorically or otherwise. The Brits grumble and moan, but we don't do anything about it. That's exactly what I'm doing now. And once finished with this, I'll go make myself a cup of tea and be satisfied (that's another English thing I like!).
As I said earlier, I think things will balance out. We will come out of our near-recession. Businesses will find new ways to survive in a post-Brexit world. The economy will, eventually, stagger into something half decent. And with each passing day, week, month and year, we're less and less likely to think things are bad enough to warrant splitting up. It really will take a return to 'the troubles' or something of that ilk to threaten that. Without a crisis (and I mean a real whopper because we're all already totally 'crisised out') the union will stagger on. Better the devil you know and all that - even if he's white and English.
May 25, 2021
I've given this exploration of the political and constitutional crisis ongoing in the UK 5 stars for Gavin Esler's undoubted ability to explain these complex issues, and their history, with an admirable style and wit.
My feelings about his solution are more mixed and to give him his due, he admits it might not be possible - I'd say that is more of a certainty, for all the reasons he had outlined in the previous pages. Whilst I didn't expect any other conclusion from him, it was still a bit of a disappointment, rather like watching a favourite horse fall at the last hurdle. Nevertheless, an enjoyable read.
My feelings about his solution are more mixed and to give him his due, he admits it might not be possible - I'd say that is more of a certainty, for all the reasons he had outlined in the previous pages. Whilst I didn't expect any other conclusion from him, it was still a bit of a disappointment, rather like watching a favourite horse fall at the last hurdle. Nevertheless, an enjoyable read.
May 22, 2021
How, or perhaps a more pertinent question - when, will Britain end? Here Esler argues that ‘Britain’ as we know it has already ended, in a fascinating and compelling dissection of nationalism and a tale of 4 nations.
Esler convincingly makes the case for a disunited rather than united Britain, arguing that discussions of federalism come too late due to a system which is, in practice, federalism by stealth. Describing the UK through Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ lens also proved to be a gateway for a fascinating discussion of identity politics, ultimately demonstrating that the idea of ‘Britishness’ may simply not exist anymore.
Overall, a thorough and outstanding read, looking at the present state and possible future for the “United Kingdom” which I highly recommend.
Esler convincingly makes the case for a disunited rather than united Britain, arguing that discussions of federalism come too late due to a system which is, in practice, federalism by stealth. Describing the UK through Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ lens also proved to be a gateway for a fascinating discussion of identity politics, ultimately demonstrating that the idea of ‘Britishness’ may simply not exist anymore.
Overall, a thorough and outstanding read, looking at the present state and possible future for the “United Kingdom” which I highly recommend.
June 17, 2022
This was never a book I was going to believe in because I have always thought that the idea breaking up Britain into separate mini-countries is absurd (Northern Ireland rejoining Ireland is another matter). I always describe myself as British, and only grudging refer to England as an actual place (apart from sports where we compete as home nations).
But I wanted to read the case for breaking up the UK, and it basically falls back to the Brexit vote and the fact that the home nations voted differently. (Although it has to be said that's how they voted then, it doesn't mean that's how they would vote the same way now, after the event. Most people had no idea what the EU ever did and probably barely miss it now it's gone).
Back to the book. I found it very repetitive in the early parts, it all revolves around that Brexit vote. But it does improve. The United Kingdom really is a laughable, chaotic place with no clear laws, and reliant on the presence of "good chaps" in positions of office to do the sensible thing. I enjoyed reading how absurd it all is, and the parts on Northern Ireland were good as Esler spent some time there and knows his stuff.
He knows his stuff generally and he did persuade me that the break up of the UK probably wouldn't be as terrible as I had feared, but I'd still be gutted if it happened. Greater say for all regions would seem to be the way to go, the North is sick of rule from London as well (although I know they voted differently in THAT vote).
We will still be all arguing about it for years....
But I wanted to read the case for breaking up the UK, and it basically falls back to the Brexit vote and the fact that the home nations voted differently. (Although it has to be said that's how they voted then, it doesn't mean that's how they would vote the same way now, after the event. Most people had no idea what the EU ever did and probably barely miss it now it's gone).
Back to the book. I found it very repetitive in the early parts, it all revolves around that Brexit vote. But it does improve. The United Kingdom really is a laughable, chaotic place with no clear laws, and reliant on the presence of "good chaps" in positions of office to do the sensible thing. I enjoyed reading how absurd it all is, and the parts on Northern Ireland were good as Esler spent some time there and knows his stuff.
He knows his stuff generally and he did persuade me that the break up of the UK probably wouldn't be as terrible as I had feared, but I'd still be gutted if it happened. Greater say for all regions would seem to be the way to go, the North is sick of rule from London as well (although I know they voted differently in THAT vote).
We will still be all arguing about it for years....
December 4, 2023
Dark money funded Libertarian think-tanks and the right-wing controlled British press have gradually ignited a growing sense of English Nationalism that has led Britain down the path of Brexit. One major consequence of this MAY be the dismantling of the UK and therefore - how Britain ends.
The rise of nationalism and various internal calls for independence within the UK are not surprising. It is easy to be disillusioned by Westminster. Whether it's the Iraq War, Brexit, FPTP distortion, MP scandals, rising geographical inequality, Trussenomics, Coronavirus cronyism or the endless broken promises and policy reversals - we have been let down by a succession of unrepresentative governments.
I strongly agree with Esler that we need to recognise the flaws and adequately repair the core British Institutions to strengthen the British union. The blind fetishism of the UK's existing electoral system and uncodified constitution is bizarre and restraining. Britain has an enviable history of invention and innovation - it's a shame we can't apply this skillset to pass the parliamentary reforms we need to help future-proof the UK and reverse the narrative, perception and reality of being presided over by an out of touch elite.
If we had a political party in power brave (and smart) enough to:
- (a) scrap FPTP for a form of PR
- (b) pursue genuine devolution
- (c) replace House of Lords with a democratic chamber
- (d) implement a coherent, codified constitution with flexibility to be amended in line with the changing times
then I believe these will be seen as significant achievements in the history books of future generations. Sadly, it is unlikely that the above reforms will occur in any foreseeable future. They lack both an understanding and sex appeal in the eyes of the public. If these reforms one day do pass, they should be milestones that Britain can be proud of (even if they do arrive better late than never).
The rise of nationalism and various internal calls for independence within the UK are not surprising. It is easy to be disillusioned by Westminster. Whether it's the Iraq War, Brexit, FPTP distortion, MP scandals, rising geographical inequality, Trussenomics, Coronavirus cronyism or the endless broken promises and policy reversals - we have been let down by a succession of unrepresentative governments.
I strongly agree with Esler that we need to recognise the flaws and adequately repair the core British Institutions to strengthen the British union. The blind fetishism of the UK's existing electoral system and uncodified constitution is bizarre and restraining. Britain has an enviable history of invention and innovation - it's a shame we can't apply this skillset to pass the parliamentary reforms we need to help future-proof the UK and reverse the narrative, perception and reality of being presided over by an out of touch elite.
If we had a political party in power brave (and smart) enough to:
- (a) scrap FPTP for a form of PR
- (b) pursue genuine devolution
- (c) replace House of Lords with a democratic chamber
- (d) implement a coherent, codified constitution with flexibility to be amended in line with the changing times
then I believe these will be seen as significant achievements in the history books of future generations. Sadly, it is unlikely that the above reforms will occur in any foreseeable future. They lack both an understanding and sex appeal in the eyes of the public. If these reforms one day do pass, they should be milestones that Britain can be proud of (even if they do arrive better late than never).
December 28, 2022
Disappointing and partial view on causes of Brexit and the rivalries between the nations of the UK. There are some possible solutions given for a federal UK.
Major holes remain in the analysis and argument for why Scottish independence would be a good idea when Brexit is bad. The same shortcomings exist with both - economically in both cases you are probably better off together. Brexit trade disruption will barely register against the economic earthquake that detaching Scotland from the UK financial and business status quo will cause. The idea that a sunny upland exists for an independent Scotland sharing the pound/bank of England/defence while leaving the UK smacks of the much derided cakism.
Interesting aside on p8 the author states that the ties that bind the UK together are gone: end of empire, decline of Protestantism, no continental enemy and no major international war. The last two are surely back with a vengeance in 2022 and one of the good reasons for a strong UK military and nuclear deterrence.
Major holes remain in the analysis and argument for why Scottish independence would be a good idea when Brexit is bad. The same shortcomings exist with both - economically in both cases you are probably better off together. Brexit trade disruption will barely register against the economic earthquake that detaching Scotland from the UK financial and business status quo will cause. The idea that a sunny upland exists for an independent Scotland sharing the pound/bank of England/defence while leaving the UK smacks of the much derided cakism.
Interesting aside on p8 the author states that the ties that bind the UK together are gone: end of empire, decline of Protestantism, no continental enemy and no major international war. The last two are surely back with a vengeance in 2022 and one of the good reasons for a strong UK military and nuclear deterrence.
May 1, 2024
It's a mixed bag this book in my opinion. Esler's political analysis of the issues facing the UK is spot on, and I agree with the solutions he proposes, for example a codified constitution, and the extension of devolution within a federal system. But what really lets it down is the historical errors within the book. For example, the misnaming of the Welsh Parliament under the old name of the National Assembly for Wales. I admit this did grate with me as I used to work at the Senedd! The book also refers to Wales as the "Principality" which Wales ceased to be in 1536. The political analysis is superb, but is let down by it's historiographical perspective. And history really matters when it comes to thinking about our Union. I would definitely recommend it for the political analysis.
July 15, 2021
Thought provoking must-read for unionists & nationalists
A well-balanced, thought-provoking analysis of the current state of the United Kingdom, with a look at the recent (and not so recent) history that has led us to this point.
A must-read for both unionists and nationalists, this book aims to address what few in Westminster dare; what could and should the future of the UK look like (together or not), because its clear the current status quo isn't working for anyone any more.
A well-balanced, thought-provoking analysis of the current state of the United Kingdom, with a look at the recent (and not so recent) history that has led us to this point.
A must-read for both unionists and nationalists, this book aims to address what few in Westminster dare; what could and should the future of the UK look like (together or not), because its clear the current status quo isn't working for anyone any more.
July 28, 2021
An excellent account of the constitutional issues facing our (dis)United Kingdom and whether we can fix them or ought to amicably go our separate ways. Really enjoyed this.
September 5, 2021
This book provides a long narrative on the differences in the Union in particular the rise of English nationalism and Scottish separatism, the prior only a recent development and the latter thriving. Gavin uses lots of examples of his vast career I journalism with his first hand accounts with leading figures in British politics. This book is worth a read to try to understand the recent context of Britain's delicate current constitutional crisis and how the Union can be saved
October 14, 2023
Thoroughly researched and enlightening!
November 8, 2022
This is a very interesting study of a European Democracy that really has not changed or been updated for a century or more. The election system is barely democratic.
March 8, 2021
Gavin Esler’s “How Britain Ends” is a highly readable account of the UK’s deep political problems. I often hear it said that the U.K. is heading for a constitutional crisis. Indeed as I learnt from this book, the U.K. doesn’t even have a written constitution unlike every other major democracy in the world. While the country has muddled through for hundreds of years without one, Scotland’s push for IndyRef2, English nationalism, Brexit, and the recovery from coronavirus, could well push its political system to the brink. As Esler explains, wide ranging reforms at the highest level will be needed if the U.K. is to survive in its current (albeit fractured) whole.
I found the book’s structure hard to follow in parts. For example Esler confusingly crosses between the Irish and Scottish issues in those chapters. I was also disappointed by the minimal discussion of Wales, with only a few pages on that. His use of a wide variety of cultural and historical sources is impressive, although some of the quotes didn’t quite gel.
Overall I found much of what Elser says and his suggested solution of stronger home rule hard to argue with. I’d highly recommend this book to anyone curios about the U.K’s political future. I’d lend it to my English friends if they wouldn’t think I was a twit for telling them how much of a mess their country is in, although I think most of them already know it.
I found the book’s structure hard to follow in parts. For example Esler confusingly crosses between the Irish and Scottish issues in those chapters. I was also disappointed by the minimal discussion of Wales, with only a few pages on that. His use of a wide variety of cultural and historical sources is impressive, although some of the quotes didn’t quite gel.
Overall I found much of what Elser says and his suggested solution of stronger home rule hard to argue with. I’d highly recommend this book to anyone curios about the U.K’s political future. I’d lend it to my English friends if they wouldn’t think I was a twit for telling them how much of a mess their country is in, although I think most of them already know it.
August 21, 2021
Well thought out investigation of the present political clusterfuck we find ourselves in, and the potential fallout to come.
February 17, 2022
Interesting read, unfortunately comes across a bit partisan with too much Boris bashing. It gives the impression Nicola Sturgeon could have been the book's sponsor. Greater objectivity would have been appreciated
February 13, 2021
Very thought-provoking and timely. The possible break up of the Union is a story that will dominate the news agenda for the next few years at the very least.
Esler writes well and the book is full of literary references, a real pleasure to read.
Esler writes well and the book is full of literary references, a real pleasure to read.
February 27, 2021
This book just confirms that the Britts are self destructing.
May 4, 2021
"كيف تنتهي بريطانيا؟"
في مطلع شهر فبراير 2021، صدر هذا الكتاب طارحا السؤال كيف تنتهي بريطانيا - مسماها الرسمي المملكة المتحدة، وهي دولة موحدة ذات برلمان واحد وحكومة ذات سيادة، وتلك النهاية المحتملة بتفككها إلى عناصرها الرئيسية الأربعة:
1- انجلترا وعاصمتها لندن، وهي ذات نظام ملكي دستوري برلماني، نسبة سكانها تزيد عن 85% من سكان المملكة المتحدة، وذلك باحتساب سكان "جمهورية إيرلندا" معها لأنها تعتبران عمليا وحدة واحدة !
2- سكوتلندا، ذات النظام الملكي الدستوري البرلماني، عاصمتها أدنبرة، وأكبر مدنها جلاسكو، ويتحدث سكان اسكتلندا لغتين مختلفتين تختلفان عن اللغة الانجليزية، علما بأن سكان سكوتلندا في حدود 5.5 مليون نسمة.
3- ويلز، وهي أيضا ذات نظام ملكي دستوري برلماني، عاصمتها كارديف، يتحدث سكانها اللغة الويلزية إلى جانب الإنجليزية، علما بأن عدد سكانها أقل من 3.5 مليون نسمة.
4- إيرلندا الشمالية، والتي قد توصف بأنها بلد أو مقاطعة، أو دويلة، أو مستعمرة، أو منطقة من مناطق المملكة المتحدة، بعدد سكان لا يتجاوز مليونين، يرجع معظمهم لأصول فرنسية، وهي قد تأسست عام 1921 بالانفصال عن جمهورية إيرلندا، وتتمتع إيرلندا الشمالية حاليا بمقدار كبير من الحكم الذاتي، ومتعاونة بموجب اتفاق سياسي تم في عام 1998، مع جمهورية إيرلندا التي تعتبر جزءا لا يتجزء من انجلترا، والجدير بالذكر أن معظم الحقوق السيادية الأساسية في جمهورية إيرلندا تابعة لحكومة المملكة المتحدة.
رغم أن المؤلف ليس شخصا أكاديميا، فقد حظي الكتاب باهتمام كبير لدى الدوائر الأكاديمية والاجتماعية في بريطانيا، وذلك لما عرف عنه من نظرة عميقة وبعيدة جدا، بدت جلية بما تحقق مؤخرا لتوقعاته التي نشرها بكتاب أصدره قبل عقدين متنبئا فيه بحصول انحراف شديد في ممارسة "الديمقراطية الأمريكية"، وكان ذلك بالمخالفة لكل التوقعات الأمريكية الشائعة آنذاك، أي وقت حكم الرئيس بيل كلينتون، حيث واكب صدور ذلك الكتاب انتصار الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية على كل خصومها، مع حسن أداء الاقتصاد الأمريكي.
مؤلف الكتاب صحافي بريطاني من اسكوتلندا أقام وعمل لسنوات طويلة في المناطق الأربعة المشار إليها، وكذلك في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.
الكتاب موجه لقراء ملمين بتاريخ أوروبا عموما، وبتاريخ المناطق البريطانية الأربعة تحديدا، أولئك الملمين بتعقيدات نشأة ممالكها وتحالفاتها، وحروبها بدءا من دحر مملكة الأنجلو ساكسون لغزوات الفايكنج القادمين من الدانمارك في القرن التاسع الميلادي، ومرورا بحرب استمرت بين إنجلترا وفرنسا مائة عام وستة عشر عاما (انتهت تلك الحرب عام 1453)، ووصولا للعام 1603، وما تلى ذلك من أحداث.
احتوى الكتاب على بعض خلفيات نشأة الأقاليم الأربعة المذكورة، بداية من نشأة "بريطانيا العظمى"، المكونة من أقاليم انجلترا واسكتلندا وويلز، ومعها المستعمرات البريطانية السابقة، ثم نشأة "المملكة المتحدة"، الذي كان نتيجة لاتحاد بريطانيا العظمى مع إقليم إيرلندا الشمالية، ومرورا باستفتاء تم عام 2014 أدى لبقاء اسكتلندا جزءا من المملكة المتحدة مع حصولها على صلاحيات تقلل من مركزية نظام المملكة المتحدة، ومن ثم تطبيق تلك الصلاحيات في كلا من انجلترا وويلز وإيرلندا الشمالية، وانتهت تلك الخلفيات الواردة في الكتاب بالعام 2016، الذي تم فيه إجراء التصويت لخروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوربي، "بريكزيت" وهو التصويت الذي اعترضت عليه اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية بدون جدوى حيث كانت أغلبية الأصوات مؤيدة لقرار الخروج.
يركز جوهر الكتاب على علامة الاستفهام التي في عنوانه، وذلك بطرح عدة أسئلة يستنتج منها وجود خطر تفكك بريطانيا التي بقيت عمليا وطنا واحدا على مدار أربعمائة عام تقريبا، ( مع تعرض بريطانيا "لإعادة ولادة" كل مائة عام، بدءا من العام 1603 ).
هذا وينتقد المؤلف ممارسات الدستور البريطاني الذي يراه مترهلا فهو مصمم للتعامل حتى مع المستعمرات السابقة، مشيرا بأن هناك دستورا مختلفا عنه: دستور غير مكتوب ولكنه أقوى من الدستور المكتوب !
وتتلخص تساؤلات المؤلف بالمطالبة بالفهم العميق للأسباب التي أوصلت بريطانيا اليوم لما يراه مأزقا سياسيا يغفل عنه رئيس وزرائها الحالي/ بوريس جونسون، وذلك لافتقاده للنظرة السياسية العميقة، مضيفا احتمال أن يغفل أيضا عن ذلك المأزق، معظم سياسي بريطانيا لانشغالهم بالأحداث على المدى القريب؛
كما تنتهي تساؤلات المؤلف الواردة في الكتاب، بالاستفسار: هل حان الوقت للترتيب لإعادة ولادة المملكة المتحدة وذلك بمعالجة الأضرار التي تعرضت لها اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية نتيجة اتفاقية خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، هذا مع اقتراح المؤلف بضرورة إجراء تعديلات وإصلاحات سياسية على أسلوب عمل البرلمان البريطاني وطريقة تمثيل الأقليات فيه، مع اقتراحه بمنح سلطات محلية أوسع للأقاليم وخصوصا اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية .. (ويشير المؤلف إلى تميز الأسلوب السياسي المتبع في ويلز، وإلى اجراءات مكافحة انتشار جائحة كوفيد19 التي لم تكن ملائمة للتطبيق في بعض مدن إنجلترا نفسها، فضلا عن اسكتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية وأنه كان من الأجدى ترك مجال للإدارات المحلية لاتخاذ اجراءات أكثر ملاءمة لمجتمعاتها ).
كتاب صادم، ليس سهلا الاطلاع عليه أو الإعجاب به، لكني صنفته بخمسة نجوم احتراما لإخلاص المؤلف لوحدة وطنه وحرصه عليها، وكذلك تقديرا لاحتفاء مواطنيه بمادته التي تتوخى وطنا مستقرا موحدا واضح المعالم مستقرا ظاهرا وباطنا.
في مطلع شهر فبراير 2021، صدر هذا الكتاب طارحا السؤال كيف تنتهي بريطانيا - مسماها الرسمي المملكة المتحدة، وهي دولة موحدة ذات برلمان واحد وحكومة ذات سيادة، وتلك النهاية المحتملة بتفككها إلى عناصرها الرئيسية الأربعة:
1- انجلترا وعاصمتها لندن، وهي ذات نظام ملكي دستوري برلماني، نسبة سكانها تزيد عن 85% من سكان المملكة المتحدة، وذلك باحتساب سكان "جمهورية إيرلندا" معها لأنها تعتبران عمليا وحدة واحدة !
2- سكوتلندا، ذات النظام الملكي الدستوري البرلماني، عاصمتها أدنبرة، وأكبر مدنها جلاسكو، ويتحدث سكان اسكتلندا لغتين مختلفتين تختلفان عن اللغة الانجليزية، علما بأن سكان سكوتلندا في حدود 5.5 مليون نسمة.
3- ويلز، وهي أيضا ذات نظام ملكي دستوري برلماني، عاصمتها كارديف، يتحدث سكانها اللغة الويلزية إلى جانب الإنجليزية، علما بأن عدد سكانها أقل من 3.5 مليون نسمة.
4- إيرلندا الشمالية، والتي قد توصف بأنها بلد أو مقاطعة، أو دويلة، أو مستعمرة، أو منطقة من مناطق المملكة المتحدة، بعدد سكان لا يتجاوز مليونين، يرجع معظمهم لأصول فرنسية، وهي قد تأسست عام 1921 بالانفصال عن جمهورية إيرلندا، وتتمتع إيرلندا الشمالية حاليا بمقدار كبير من الحكم الذاتي، ومتعاونة بموجب اتفاق سياسي تم في عام 1998، مع جمهورية إيرلندا التي تعتبر جزءا لا يتجزء من انجلترا، والجدير بالذكر أن معظم الحقوق السيادية الأساسية في جمهورية إيرلندا تابعة لحكومة المملكة المتحدة.
رغم أن المؤلف ليس شخصا أكاديميا، فقد حظي الكتاب باهتمام كبير لدى الدوائر الأكاديمية والاجتماعية في بريطانيا، وذلك لما عرف عنه من نظرة عميقة وبعيدة جدا، بدت جلية بما تحقق مؤخرا لتوقعاته التي نشرها بكتاب أصدره قبل عقدين متنبئا فيه بحصول انحراف شديد في ممارسة "الديمقراطية الأمريكية"، وكان ذلك بالمخالفة لكل التوقعات الأمريكية الشائعة آنذاك، أي وقت حكم الرئيس بيل كلينتون، حيث واكب صدور ذلك الكتاب انتصار الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية على كل خصومها، مع حسن أداء الاقتصاد الأمريكي.
مؤلف الكتاب صحافي بريطاني من اسكوتلندا أقام وعمل لسنوات طويلة في المناطق الأربعة المشار إليها، وكذلك في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.
الكتاب موجه لقراء ملمين بتاريخ أوروبا عموما، وبتاريخ المناطق البريطانية الأربعة تحديدا، أولئك الملمين بتعقيدات نشأة ممالكها وتحالفاتها، وحروبها بدءا من دحر مملكة الأنجلو ساكسون لغزوات الفايكنج القادمين من الدانمارك في القرن التاسع الميلادي، ومرورا بحرب استمرت بين إنجلترا وفرنسا مائة عام وستة عشر عاما (انتهت تلك الحرب عام 1453)، ووصولا للعام 1603، وما تلى ذلك من أحداث.
احتوى الكتاب على بعض خلفيات نشأة الأقاليم الأربعة المذكورة، بداية من نشأة "بريطانيا العظمى"، المكونة من أقاليم انجلترا واسكتلندا وويلز، ومعها المستعمرات البريطانية السابقة، ثم نشأة "المملكة المتحدة"، الذي كان نتيجة لاتحاد بريطانيا العظمى مع إقليم إيرلندا الشمالية، ومرورا باستفتاء تم عام 2014 أدى لبقاء اسكتلندا جزءا من المملكة المتحدة مع حصولها على صلاحيات تقلل من مركزية نظام المملكة المتحدة، ومن ثم تطبيق تلك الصلاحيات في كلا من انجلترا وويلز وإيرلندا الشمالية، وانتهت تلك الخلفيات الواردة في الكتاب بالعام 2016، الذي تم فيه إجراء التصويت لخروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوربي، "بريكزيت" وهو التصويت الذي اعترضت عليه اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية بدون جدوى حيث كانت أغلبية الأصوات مؤيدة لقرار الخروج.
يركز جوهر الكتاب على علامة الاستفهام التي في عنوانه، وذلك بطرح عدة أسئلة يستنتج منها وجود خطر تفكك بريطانيا التي بقيت عمليا وطنا واحدا على مدار أربعمائة عام تقريبا، ( مع تعرض بريطانيا "لإعادة ولادة" كل مائة عام، بدءا من العام 1603 ).
هذا وينتقد المؤلف ممارسات الدستور البريطاني الذي يراه مترهلا فهو مصمم للتعامل حتى مع المستعمرات السابقة، مشيرا بأن هناك دستورا مختلفا عنه: دستور غير مكتوب ولكنه أقوى من الدستور المكتوب !
وتتلخص تساؤلات المؤلف بالمطالبة بالفهم العميق للأسباب التي أوصلت بريطانيا اليوم لما يراه مأزقا سياسيا يغفل عنه رئيس وزرائها الحالي/ بوريس جونسون، وذلك لافتقاده للنظرة السياسية العميقة، مضيفا احتمال أن يغفل أيضا عن ذلك المأزق، معظم سياسي بريطانيا لانشغالهم بالأحداث على المدى القريب؛
كما تنتهي تساؤلات المؤلف الواردة في الكتاب، بالاستفسار: هل حان الوقت للترتيب لإعادة ولادة المملكة المتحدة وذلك بمعالجة الأضرار التي تعرضت لها اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية نتيجة اتفاقية خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، هذا مع اقتراح المؤلف بضرورة إجراء تعديلات وإصلاحات سياسية على أسلوب عمل البرلمان البريطاني وطريقة تمثيل الأقليات فيه، مع اقتراحه بمنح سلطات محلية أوسع للأقاليم وخصوصا اسكوتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية .. (ويشير المؤلف إلى تميز الأسلوب السياسي المتبع في ويلز، وإلى اجراءات مكافحة انتشار جائحة كوفيد19 التي لم تكن ملائمة للتطبيق في بعض مدن إنجلترا نفسها، فضلا عن اسكتلندا وإيرلندا الشمالية وأنه كان من الأجدى ترك مجال للإدارات المحلية لاتخاذ اجراءات أكثر ملاءمة لمجتمعاتها ).
كتاب صادم، ليس سهلا الاطلاع عليه أو الإعجاب به، لكني صنفته بخمسة نجوم احتراما لإخلاص المؤلف لوحدة وطنه وحرصه عليها، وكذلك تقديرا لاحتفاء مواطنيه بمادته التي تتوخى وطنا مستقرا موحدا واضح المعالم مستقرا ظاهرا وباطنا.
March 12, 2025
As a supporter of Scottish Independence, this book gave me hope for an alternative to full independence in the form of federalisation of the UK, the abolishment of the House of Lords and power localised as near to the people as is possible through regional officials supported by a constitution that delineates this power, with maximum devolution existing in all four nations under the monarchy as the head of state, and with the pound used by all four nations and controlled by the BoE.
Gavin Esler tackles issues such as the constant elision of Englishness with Britishness resulting in the Othering of the rest of the UK. He points out that Britishness can mean two different things, in one case being that something originating in the UK is British and therefore exhibits one form of Britishness, while quite another form is Britishness as characteristics shared by all parts of the UK, such as binge drinking, complaining about the weather, queuing, and politeness.
This confusion of the two terms was made plain to me on reading a review in a UK broadsheet written by an Oxbridge graduate about the new Wallace and Gromit film as being "unapologetically British" when really they should have said "English" since the characteristics exhibited in the film are not shared by the other three nations, but do originate in geographical Britain.
The book also focuses on what's known as the English Exceptionalist view that the UK, unlike any other modern democracy, doesn't need a constitution with Esler providing a multitude of examples to the contrary. He argues that the ignorance-based approach of allowing our situation to continue, as it has done with a ramshackle arrangement of powers, laws and governance, will lead to the end of the UK as it exists today and notes that English Nationalism is more prevalent than that of any of the other four nations giving multiple censuses as proof.
The book goes on to highlight how the prevalence of English Nationalism is not publicised and how over 30% of the media in the UK went to Oxbridge despite this being a tiny proportion of the population of the country and how over 60% of these Oxbridge graduates are in politics, adding that 13 of the last 17 Prime Ministers are included in this statistic.
Knowing about the McCrone report of 1973 and how the UK government suppressed this study that concluded that Scotland would, if independent become "the Kuwait of Europe" with "an embarrassment of riches"; about how Scotland was told that voting "No" in the 2014 independence referendum was the only way to ensure Scotland remains in the EU; how England and not Northern Ireland or Scotland voted for Brexit; how the UK Government failed to fulfil The Vow it gave if Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014, this book still convinced me that the solutions suggested by Esler are preferable to full Scottish Independence.
However, as brave, objective and well-written as this book is, Esler's vision might fall down on one assumption that pervades the text - that English Nationalism is an accident of disenfranchisement by the neglected parts of the UK and not in fact a deliberate goal by those in power to create a singular English state over a long term in place of the UK, supported and executed by the Oxbridge elite. I hope our predicament is due to the former of the explanations, but as the "United" Kingdom continues to flounder with those in power disinclined to act, this is looking less and less likely.
Gavin Esler tackles issues such as the constant elision of Englishness with Britishness resulting in the Othering of the rest of the UK. He points out that Britishness can mean two different things, in one case being that something originating in the UK is British and therefore exhibits one form of Britishness, while quite another form is Britishness as characteristics shared by all parts of the UK, such as binge drinking, complaining about the weather, queuing, and politeness.
This confusion of the two terms was made plain to me on reading a review in a UK broadsheet written by an Oxbridge graduate about the new Wallace and Gromit film as being "unapologetically British" when really they should have said "English" since the characteristics exhibited in the film are not shared by the other three nations, but do originate in geographical Britain.
The book also focuses on what's known as the English Exceptionalist view that the UK, unlike any other modern democracy, doesn't need a constitution with Esler providing a multitude of examples to the contrary. He argues that the ignorance-based approach of allowing our situation to continue, as it has done with a ramshackle arrangement of powers, laws and governance, will lead to the end of the UK as it exists today and notes that English Nationalism is more prevalent than that of any of the other four nations giving multiple censuses as proof.
The book goes on to highlight how the prevalence of English Nationalism is not publicised and how over 30% of the media in the UK went to Oxbridge despite this being a tiny proportion of the population of the country and how over 60% of these Oxbridge graduates are in politics, adding that 13 of the last 17 Prime Ministers are included in this statistic.
Knowing about the McCrone report of 1973 and how the UK government suppressed this study that concluded that Scotland would, if independent become "the Kuwait of Europe" with "an embarrassment of riches"; about how Scotland was told that voting "No" in the 2014 independence referendum was the only way to ensure Scotland remains in the EU; how England and not Northern Ireland or Scotland voted for Brexit; how the UK Government failed to fulfil The Vow it gave if Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014, this book still convinced me that the solutions suggested by Esler are preferable to full Scottish Independence.
However, as brave, objective and well-written as this book is, Esler's vision might fall down on one assumption that pervades the text - that English Nationalism is an accident of disenfranchisement by the neglected parts of the UK and not in fact a deliberate goal by those in power to create a singular English state over a long term in place of the UK, supported and executed by the Oxbridge elite. I hope our predicament is due to the former of the explanations, but as the "United" Kingdom continues to flounder with those in power disinclined to act, this is looking less and less likely.
February 10, 2022
"British citizens in the twenty-first century are kept as much in the dark about what our system of government truly entails as European Christians were in the time before Martin Luther and the Reformation ensured that the Bible was available for all to read"
"Muddling through no longer works. If the United Kingdom is to continue to exist, some kind of reinvention is necessary or else the great experiment of the past 400 years is destined to come to an end. And in that case, we will need to negotiate a divorce deal to divide up assets and liabilities as part of a future constructive relationship."
Esler does not hold back in this scathing but comprehensive assessment of where the United Kingdom is at - culturally and politically - and where it could possibly go if the fracturing of trust and sense of the regional democratic deficit continues. The points were familiar (having heard them in a variety of podcasts and op-eds), but here Esler expands upon talking points on the left (and right) and dissects them to ultimately propose a new kind of federalism for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. This is timely as we 'emerge' from the pandemic and consider the efficacy of our governing systems to provide the efficiency and sense of democratic accountability that we deserve. He also doesn't hold back from the knife-edge we are at (but, too, how comparative these tensions are to the Troubles, which he reported on in the 1980s), and what exactly is at stake if we fail to have an honest conversation. Whether it's discussing how the 'Good Chap' theory of government is being stretched to its very limits - or broken - or whether Brexit is responsible for or symptomatic of our democratic deficit, Esler provides a great and cohesive summary of the different questions that will surely define the 2020s. His analysis of different types of nationalisms, including the civic Scottish nationalism espoused in recent years, was fascinating and a good eye-opener (throwing other forms into sharp relief). Highly recommended.
"We will continue to share a common language, an integrated popular culture, the free movement of people, marriages and friendships. We also share a sense of humour. We even laugh at many of the same politicians. But when the laughing stops, we need to decide how to fix things."
"Muddling through no longer works. If the United Kingdom is to continue to exist, some kind of reinvention is necessary or else the great experiment of the past 400 years is destined to come to an end. And in that case, we will need to negotiate a divorce deal to divide up assets and liabilities as part of a future constructive relationship."
Esler does not hold back in this scathing but comprehensive assessment of where the United Kingdom is at - culturally and politically - and where it could possibly go if the fracturing of trust and sense of the regional democratic deficit continues. The points were familiar (having heard them in a variety of podcasts and op-eds), but here Esler expands upon talking points on the left (and right) and dissects them to ultimately propose a new kind of federalism for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. This is timely as we 'emerge' from the pandemic and consider the efficacy of our governing systems to provide the efficiency and sense of democratic accountability that we deserve. He also doesn't hold back from the knife-edge we are at (but, too, how comparative these tensions are to the Troubles, which he reported on in the 1980s), and what exactly is at stake if we fail to have an honest conversation. Whether it's discussing how the 'Good Chap' theory of government is being stretched to its very limits - or broken - or whether Brexit is responsible for or symptomatic of our democratic deficit, Esler provides a great and cohesive summary of the different questions that will surely define the 2020s. His analysis of different types of nationalisms, including the civic Scottish nationalism espoused in recent years, was fascinating and a good eye-opener (throwing other forms into sharp relief). Highly recommended.
"We will continue to share a common language, an integrated popular culture, the free movement of people, marriages and friendships. We also share a sense of humour. We even laugh at many of the same politicians. But when the laughing stops, we need to decide how to fix things."
September 2, 2021
This book has changed the way I think.
I've been (almost obsessively) thinking about about all the things Gavin Esler writes about in this book for a long while. I guess those things can be summed up in one question: what is wrong with the UK?
I'm English. I'm from Southeast England and have lived in the North West of England for a few years. I moved to the North West not long after the Brexit referendum. The timing of that relocation has been key to my interest in what it means to be English, British, and European.
This book draws heavily on the context, history, and outcomes of the two referenda (Indy Ref 1, and Brexit). It does a lot more than this as well.
I really am fascinated by the opening third of this book that holds a mirror up to the UK and how out of balance the country is from nation to nation. The analysis of London vs. the rest of England was exceptional.
The middle third isn't as good. That's why I'm holding back a star. There is still A LOT to learn and keep you interested, but the scope, the ambition of what the book is trying to explore is reined in a bit. And I feel that's more a problem with me than Esler. I wanted more perspectives, more dimensions to the arguments. Particularly from those at the bottom or margins of society. Perhaps that is for another book.
One criticism I would throw Esler's way though is that he sometimes describes recent events without any point to his argument. Yes I know about coronavirus and how the government handled it. Yes I know about Brexit and how the government has made a mess of it. What's your point? (There's a few occasions where Esler goes off topic completely just to ridicule Donald Trump.) Thankfully this doesn't happen too often and it's not long before you're onto the next paragraph, and we're back on track.
The final third was just as intriguing as the first. The closing chapters are a real highlight, looking at where the UK could go with a good amount of realism and optimism.
If you're interested in politics and worried about Brexit (or you're horrified of government's handling of it since the vote), this is definitely worth a read.
I've been (almost obsessively) thinking about about all the things Gavin Esler writes about in this book for a long while. I guess those things can be summed up in one question: what is wrong with the UK?
I'm English. I'm from Southeast England and have lived in the North West of England for a few years. I moved to the North West not long after the Brexit referendum. The timing of that relocation has been key to my interest in what it means to be English, British, and European.
This book draws heavily on the context, history, and outcomes of the two referenda (Indy Ref 1, and Brexit). It does a lot more than this as well.
I really am fascinated by the opening third of this book that holds a mirror up to the UK and how out of balance the country is from nation to nation. The analysis of London vs. the rest of England was exceptional.
The middle third isn't as good. That's why I'm holding back a star. There is still A LOT to learn and keep you interested, but the scope, the ambition of what the book is trying to explore is reined in a bit. And I feel that's more a problem with me than Esler. I wanted more perspectives, more dimensions to the arguments. Particularly from those at the bottom or margins of society. Perhaps that is for another book.
One criticism I would throw Esler's way though is that he sometimes describes recent events without any point to his argument. Yes I know about coronavirus and how the government handled it. Yes I know about Brexit and how the government has made a mess of it. What's your point? (There's a few occasions where Esler goes off topic completely just to ridicule Donald Trump.) Thankfully this doesn't happen too often and it's not long before you're onto the next paragraph, and we're back on track.
The final third was just as intriguing as the first. The closing chapters are a real highlight, looking at where the UK could go with a good amount of realism and optimism.
If you're interested in politics and worried about Brexit (or you're horrified of government's handling of it since the vote), this is definitely worth a read.
July 18, 2021
A somewhat polemical book which makes its case for the urgency of political reform if the UK is to be saved on the basis of insightful reflection of the past few years and the history of centuries. Esler’s diagnoses of the situation and the problems are well framed, if a little partial in places. He is right to note the de facto federalisation of the UK system since devolution, and surely correct in his analysis of English nationalism as the route cause of the current crisis. Even so, his remedies are less convincing. His view of Scottish independence campaigns as a means of formalising a (con)federal solution for the British isles crucially misses the issue of sovereignty. A federal system which includes England as such a dominant actor would not equate to the successful federal models he cites in Germany and Switzerland. And - perhaps most importantly - a significant number of English and other British do not see - or care to see - the crisis which Esler describes, and are still less interested in addressing it. There were no votes wherever English regional devolution was proposed, and electoral reform is low down the agenda for most people, however poorly the UK performs against other democracies. We are stuck in the Brexit problem: half the country will see in Esler’s arguments a powerful mandate for radical change; but half will reject this as the view of the chatterati and too abstract for consideration. Even in Scotland, views are mixed and there are plenty with mixed family backgrounds who do feel British. Devolution within Scotland would be a further challenge. I suspect that this means the UK will muddle on for some time to come. So: a very interesting read and an important, well argued contribution to the debate. But not yet the killer argument.
September 7, 2021
An analysis of the state in which the UK finds itself, with some policy prescriptions as to how to address the issues without breaking-up the state.
If only the UK were a properly federal state! Many other countries have similar tensions, but have proper constitutional structures in place to balance them (and to adjust those structures over time). The UK, by contrast, relies on the "good chap" theory of governance by which role-holders' actions are supposedly limited by their reverence for the norms and conventions of office. If people gain power who don't respect these limits, there are no checks and balances to prevent their misbehaviour. The "unwritten constitution" seems like it should be flexible and able to juggle competing interests, but turns out to be rigid in the hands of those determined to force a chosen outcome.
Esler correctly identifies "the vow" as emblematic of the problems. This was a public undertaking, given by the leaders of all main all-UK political parties before the last Scottish independence referendum, to move towards greater devolution if independence was rejected (which it was). But the vow was jettisoned in the light of the changing circumstances that led to the EU referendum, leaving Scotland bound to the UK and not to the EU: exactly the situation that the independence vote sought to avoid.
Esler is a Unionist, and sees a constitutional convention and federalisation as the way to save the Union. It's an opinion many have shared, but that many no longer do. His prescriptions strike me as logical, sensible – and unachievable given the history, politics, and individuals in play at the moment. And perhaps not even desirable given those constraints.
If only the UK were a properly federal state! Many other countries have similar tensions, but have proper constitutional structures in place to balance them (and to adjust those structures over time). The UK, by contrast, relies on the "good chap" theory of governance by which role-holders' actions are supposedly limited by their reverence for the norms and conventions of office. If people gain power who don't respect these limits, there are no checks and balances to prevent their misbehaviour. The "unwritten constitution" seems like it should be flexible and able to juggle competing interests, but turns out to be rigid in the hands of those determined to force a chosen outcome.
Esler correctly identifies "the vow" as emblematic of the problems. This was a public undertaking, given by the leaders of all main all-UK political parties before the last Scottish independence referendum, to move towards greater devolution if independence was rejected (which it was). But the vow was jettisoned in the light of the changing circumstances that led to the EU referendum, leaving Scotland bound to the UK and not to the EU: exactly the situation that the independence vote sought to avoid.
Esler is a Unionist, and sees a constitutional convention and federalisation as the way to save the Union. It's an opinion many have shared, but that many no longer do. His prescriptions strike me as logical, sensible – and unachievable given the history, politics, and individuals in play at the moment. And perhaps not even desirable given those constraints.
August 14, 2022
If you're looking for a razor sharp analysis of the current political situation of the UK then this is the book to go for. Gavin Esler draws on a decades long experience as a journalist which is testified by the ancedotes that emphasize the points he makes. Lots of the facts and connections he describes weren't new to me but he assembles everything together and especially makes great points from a Scottish perspective. For some time I thought, he might be too biased but at the end of the book he gives valuable thoughts to proposals to "save" the Union, so the book isn't just an analysis but also a valuable contribution to political discussions going on at the very moment.
Gavin Esler's style is very easy to read, he doesn't try to impress with fancy choice of words or ivory tower language. The chapters are quite short which always helps me keep a reading flow. The only thing that I got slightly annoyed with was the degree of the text's repetitive nature, some aspects keep coming up again and again. I understand that it might be necessary now and then but towards the end I got a bit bored, that's why I'm not giving five stars. I think my conclusion is that the book could've been cut short a little by about 50 pages.
Gavin Esler's style is very easy to read, he doesn't try to impress with fancy choice of words or ivory tower language. The chapters are quite short which always helps me keep a reading flow. The only thing that I got slightly annoyed with was the degree of the text's repetitive nature, some aspects keep coming up again and again. I understand that it might be necessary now and then but towards the end I got a bit bored, that's why I'm not giving five stars. I think my conclusion is that the book could've been cut short a little by about 50 pages.
December 19, 2022
There are a lot of interesting ideas here about the seemingly inevitable break-up of the United Kingdom: the rise of nationalist parties; the problems and differences highlighted by Brexit, and the endless use of British when people mean English.
A great deal of this content resonated with me - "the news where you are" chapter in particular. Esler is good on Scotland, and devotes a chapter to Northern Ireland, but Wales is very poorly covered. There's no mention of the Welsh language or the fact that Wales has had a working Labour government throughout the last 12 years of Tory central government. He even has a section on the Royal family that fails to even mention the contentious Prince of Wales title. The rise in a strong sense of Welsh identity in the last few years, particularly among the young, is an important factor to consider in the future of the Welsh independence movement but Esler fails to see the seeds of this, which were certainly there in 2020.
The concluding chapters plot out a clear programme of reform but there is little advice on how we overcome voter apathy, or remove the power of the right-wing media and fake news.
Certainly thought-provoking, but for me, it failed to get to the heart of what is tearing this nation apart and how we can stop it.
A great deal of this content resonated with me - "the news where you are" chapter in particular. Esler is good on Scotland, and devotes a chapter to Northern Ireland, but Wales is very poorly covered. There's no mention of the Welsh language or the fact that Wales has had a working Labour government throughout the last 12 years of Tory central government. He even has a section on the Royal family that fails to even mention the contentious Prince of Wales title. The rise in a strong sense of Welsh identity in the last few years, particularly among the young, is an important factor to consider in the future of the Welsh independence movement but Esler fails to see the seeds of this, which were certainly there in 2020.
The concluding chapters plot out a clear programme of reform but there is little advice on how we overcome voter apathy, or remove the power of the right-wing media and fake news.
Certainly thought-provoking, but for me, it failed to get to the heart of what is tearing this nation apart and how we can stop it.
May 24, 2021
Well read & well argued
Esler’s main point is that rising nationalist movements in Scotland and England are linked to a democratic deficit is well made and leads him to argue for a federal UK with powers properly devolved to the 4 nations. I would go further and great England up into at least three parts: the North, the South and Greater London. Then there would be six parts to the new UK. We basically need to devolve power, have a written constitution outlining who has the o authority for what, and what we share: defence policy, currency, the NHS, head of state.
Maybe because he lived in all the four nations plus America Esler is pretty good at accents. He reads in the local accent when quoting someone from each region, which makes the narration a bit more entertaining.
I read the Kindle edition alongside listening through Audible, with Whipsersync. this worked really well for me with this book, and is worth doing if you can get a discount on buying both the ebook and the audiobook editions.
Esler’s main point is that rising nationalist movements in Scotland and England are linked to a democratic deficit is well made and leads him to argue for a federal UK with powers properly devolved to the 4 nations. I would go further and great England up into at least three parts: the North, the South and Greater London. Then there would be six parts to the new UK. We basically need to devolve power, have a written constitution outlining who has the o authority for what, and what we share: defence policy, currency, the NHS, head of state.
Maybe because he lived in all the four nations plus America Esler is pretty good at accents. He reads in the local accent when quoting someone from each region, which makes the narration a bit more entertaining.
I read the Kindle edition alongside listening through Audible, with Whipsersync. this worked really well for me with this book, and is worth doing if you can get a discount on buying both the ebook and the audiobook editions.
August 12, 2021
An enjoyable read where Gavin Esler expands upon Anthony Barnett's theory that English Nationalism can only be resolved by the breakup of the United Kingdom.
Esler's thesis is much the same but now we've a whole book for it. Esler presents Scottish Nationalism in a very open, internationalist and friendly light while making the case that much of the current United Kingdom is inherently undemocratic and unequal. He makes the case that it's breakup would benefit all of the peoples of both Ireland and Britain.
I felt that the case was well made though I feel like the book could have been a bit shorter. I read the Kindle version which had more spelling and typing errors than I'm used to. I felt like the arguments have been made before but if you're new to the Brexit and UK Nationalism debate, I'd recommend this. If you've been listening to podcasts about Brexit and/or informing yourself about it for some time now, you'll already be familiar with Gavin Esler and his points.
A solid and well researched read.
Esler's thesis is much the same but now we've a whole book for it. Esler presents Scottish Nationalism in a very open, internationalist and friendly light while making the case that much of the current United Kingdom is inherently undemocratic and unequal. He makes the case that it's breakup would benefit all of the peoples of both Ireland and Britain.
I felt that the case was well made though I feel like the book could have been a bit shorter. I read the Kindle version which had more spelling and typing errors than I'm used to. I felt like the arguments have been made before but if you're new to the Brexit and UK Nationalism debate, I'd recommend this. If you've been listening to podcasts about Brexit and/or informing yourself about it for some time now, you'll already be familiar with Gavin Esler and his points.
A solid and well researched read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews