TheQuiet1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4611682.stm
Does anyone else think that having a 'British Day' is an incredibly unBritish thing to do? Or is that just me? I'm far more of the opinion that rather than having a special day set aside to celebrate being proud of being British, I'd rather let everyday achievements speak for themselves. For example, I'd be a heck of a lot prouder of the place if NHS funding was made more efficient, if sensible education reforms were introduced, anti-social behaviour curbed (The RESPECT agenda...is he taking the mick!?) etc.
I mean I appreciate the sentiment in what's he's saying. Maybe we do all need to "celebrate our national identity" (whatever that really means), maybe we do need to be more patriotic...but a day set aside to do so? Wouldn't making the UK a better place to live be far more effective?
And of-course cynical Brit that I am, I can't help but feel Brown is just doing it to fudge over Labour's traditionally anti-patriotism attitude and his own Scottish background that might be associated with more 'separatist' attitudes of the past in an attempt to make him seem a more attractive PM. One of the papers reckons that Brits might not appreciate a Scottish PM coming down to London and ruling over us all (I'm obviously paraphrasing here!). WTF? Why should a Scottish PM be any more... diversive (wrong word, but you're either following me here or you're not. I'm guessing not!) than an English one? OK so there are far more English Brits than any other nation but Scotland is just as much part of the UK as everyone else, why shouldn't a Scot be in charge? I really don't get why anyone should have an issue with it........unless the papers are just taking the mick, which is probably (hopefully) the most likely!
Vaguely connected issue here: A lot of people are talking about how Labour wants us all to feel British on the one hand but at the same time encouraging devolution among the separate nations. On that point...last year the Scottish Parliament introduced an Act that made it a specific crime to attack/obstruct a member of the emergency services carrying out their job. The Act might not have been a great success in terms of reducing attacks and convictions under it are low but attacks on the emergency services are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly common yet this horrible issue is seemingly being ignored by the rest of the UK! Surely this is a national issue that warrants a national response? Why should Scotland be the only one doing a thing about it? What's with all these new laws being introduced in some parts of the UK but not others? Like the smoking ban...all coming in at different times and with different conditions depending on which UK country you're in. How confusing is this!? Would some CLARITY and COHESION really kill us!?
I'm ranting now aren't I? Sorry...
Does anyone else think that having a 'British Day' is an incredibly unBritish thing to do? Or is that just me? I'm far more of the opinion that rather than having a special day set aside to celebrate being proud of being British, I'd rather let everyday achievements speak for themselves. For example, I'd be a heck of a lot prouder of the place if NHS funding was made more efficient, if sensible education reforms were introduced, anti-social behaviour curbed (The RESPECT agenda...is he taking the mick!?) etc.
I mean I appreciate the sentiment in what's he's saying. Maybe we do all need to "celebrate our national identity" (whatever that really means), maybe we do need to be more patriotic...but a day set aside to do so? Wouldn't making the UK a better place to live be far more effective?
And of-course cynical Brit that I am, I can't help but feel Brown is just doing it to fudge over Labour's traditionally anti-patriotism attitude and his own Scottish background that might be associated with more 'separatist' attitudes of the past in an attempt to make him seem a more attractive PM. One of the papers reckons that Brits might not appreciate a Scottish PM coming down to London and ruling over us all (I'm obviously paraphrasing here!). WTF? Why should a Scottish PM be any more... diversive (wrong word, but you're either following me here or you're not. I'm guessing not!) than an English one? OK so there are far more English Brits than any other nation but Scotland is just as much part of the UK as everyone else, why shouldn't a Scot be in charge? I really don't get why anyone should have an issue with it........unless the papers are just taking the mick, which is probably (hopefully) the most likely!
Vaguely connected issue here: A lot of people are talking about how Labour wants us all to feel British on the one hand but at the same time encouraging devolution among the separate nations. On that point...last year the Scottish Parliament introduced an Act that made it a specific crime to attack/obstruct a member of the emergency services carrying out their job. The Act might not have been a great success in terms of reducing attacks and convictions under it are low but attacks on the emergency services are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly common yet this horrible issue is seemingly being ignored by the rest of the UK! Surely this is a national issue that warrants a national response? Why should Scotland be the only one doing a thing about it? What's with all these new laws being introduced in some parts of the UK but not others? Like the smoking ban...all coming in at different times and with different conditions depending on which UK country you're in. How confusing is this!? Would some CLARITY and COHESION really kill us!?
I'm ranting now aren't I? Sorry...