Therefore, as a society - and especially in the media - we must eradicate the constructive image of violence

I can't track down the reference, but I've seen it suggested that many of the young Muslims who are most susceptible to extremism get most of their information about Islam from the media, and that this is in fact the fundamentalists' most effective propaganda tool.

Whether her remarks 'arouse fear' or not, she was merely giving her opinion on homosexuality - an opinion which is consistent with her religious beliefs, and which I expect many, especially in conservative Northern Ireland, agree with. Hate crime legislation is meant to protect people from harassment, not to be used as a brickbat against legitimate expression of religious beliefs. By all means, criticise her comments, but no one should have run whining to Gordon Brown about them.

Compulsory voting? Seems a little against the concept of liberty. Sure you have the right to vote, but you equally have the right not to vote.

I agree with Hendre; but my point was who is entitled to vote on Scottish independence, and what should be the question on which they are voting? Should only people living in Scotland be entitled to vote on a question that asks for people's views on independence out of any UK-wide context; or should Scottish people (not defined ethnically - I'm not the one who's viewing this in ethnic terms; I never stated I saw Scottishness as an ethnicity) living elsewhere also have the vote on the same context-free question; or, if you admit the principle that interested persons outside of Scotland (which unionists might wish to extend to all UK citizens) should also have a say, should a single question (e.g. Scottish independence and a newly defined state / constitution for the rest of the UK) be put to the whole of the UK - the consequence of a 'no' vote in the rest of the UK not being a veto on Scottish independence but the requirement to find another settlement for the remaining UK countries, including the possibility of independence for them? See my further discsussion on this (my final word here on the matter!) at: http://nationalconversationforengland.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/scottish-independence-a-uk-wide-referendum-would-be-required/.

I agree with Hendre. The crucial thing to understand about nationalism is that it is not a racism or ethnism. It is open to anyone who 'imagines' themselves to be part of the community, to follow Ben Anderson's analysis. His point being that this imagining is very real and influential. There can be chauvinists who proclaim a racially defined nationalism but they can be - and mostly are - successfully frustrated because they are, among other things, making a category mistake.

On Wales, I know an English born person who not only speaks Welsh and is now the parent in a Welsh speaking family, but has also taught it.

As Alex says, in the UK nationalism is civic.

An eloquent lady of Edgebaston
Desired the Athenian Option
So she said to Liam Byrne
Stand up and be firm
It’s the difference between spin and a hard-on

I met an eloquent lady in Edgbaston;
The candidate, an iconoclast on
The Lords' abolition,
A return to sortition,
Her speech left us speechless in aston

ishment.  And the prevailing wind, she'd intuit;
“Hereditary peers?  Well, they blew it,
We need revolution,
A fresh constitution,
And we can win if we put our minds to it.”

The 2001 census revealed that 1 in 5 people resident in Wales were English-born. While this ‘English vote’ is significant it is probably misleading to term it as such since the reasons why English people live in Wales and their attitudes towards Welshness vary so much.

Two Plaid Cymru Assembly Members are English incomers; both Labour and the Conservatives also have English-born Assembly Members. Voting based on ethnicity really is a non-issue.

More discussion/research of this subject is here:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=2545

The inquest process must be kept independent. If the government hand picks those who it wants to investigate contentious deaths (at inquests in secret) then there is much to be alarmed about........

I vote for Dougthedug's effort so far.

Bit of a joint effort this one....

I met an eloquent lady in Edgebaston
Who said "Liam, you're puling a fast one
With this Britishness thing
It's Brown you're aping
But when we put our minds to it
Us voters see through it
And that's why you're not going to last son!"

“How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence?”

The fact that this has never been raised in Scotland and that no one would ever consider raising it says all that needs to be said, and flows directly from the fact that Scottish nationalism is civic [or as Nairn would say ‘constitutional’] rather than ethnic. But it leaves me wondering why it is so important for your argument to find an ethnic nationalism lurking under the surface.

From Joan and Judith

An eloquent lady of Brum
Considered the Minister scum
“Though you put your mind to it
We all see right through it
You’re just banging the nationalist drum!”

I met an eloquent lady in Edgbaston,
But her gene pool was not a deep vast one,
Her comment below,
was tabloid and slow,
"If we only put our minds to it", I hope is her last one.

I met an eloquent lady in Edgbaston

Who like Enoch's constituent in Wolverhampton

Stirred dreams of rivers of blood,

But said you, Liam, can stop the flood,

And we'll get on fine if we only put our minds to it. 

"Whether your parents were born in Warsaw or Karachi or Inverness is immaterial to you feeling Scottish. From birth onwards your experience of life is shaped by distinctly Scottish institutions".

How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence? 

Anne - 1996 was a long time ago in these matters. It now seems that by passing an Act that says that this country is subject to the rule of law,, judges could now overrule Parliament if in their judgement it acted unlawfully. John Jackson wrote an important article about this for us and you can get to it via a link in my intro here.

Rule 101 is fine by OK

(From the under-consciousness of G.Brown)

I met an eloquent lady from Edgbaston
Whose eyes I really got lost in
We put our minds to it
But Oh England, we blew it
And now we’re all stuck with Dave Cameron

No new written constitution, including a new Bill of Rights can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you

"Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent schemes by proponents of Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to 'political-moral' entrenchment ) with conventional sovereignty".

Parliament did not make these laws of which I write even though Parliament believes it can do anything it likes. Parliament can undo anything it does but what it may not do is to repeal our long standing Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Rights/Bill of Rights because Parliament had no hand in either.

It does not matter really what is in those NEW rights because they can be repealed when the next Government comes in (if there is any need of one) or overridden straight away by the EU.