Interview with John Carney, Resident of Manchester

Pearl of Tyburn: Tonight I’ll be speaking with John Carney, resident of Manchester. Mr. Carney, could you tell us a bit about your background?

John Carney:  Certainly. I'm an Englishman of Anglo-Irish heritage born and raised in Manchester by two wonderful parents, a proud, patriotic Brit, a good Catholic boy (I hope!), a fervent Tory and Unionist, an underemployed accounting graduate of the University of Liverpool, and a part-time customer service assistant and occasional furniture fitter.

P.T.:  What’s your reflection on this past year and the many political and cultural ebbs and flows of it?

J.C.:  I suspect there will be few other years in our nation's history more momentous, powerful or poignant in which to consider the nature of British identity than 2014; the year not only of the centenary of the start of the Great War which deprived an entire generation of the prime of its youth, men whose tremendous courage and sacrifice in the name of King and country is a debt our contemptibly useless politicians have consistently failed to repay, but also of the dreaded Scottish independence referendum, a plebiscite which has the power either to destroy the greatest bi-national partnership the world has ever seen or to silence those calling for its dissolution for decades, perhaps even centuries, to come. In June we recalled our past and mourned our fallen, now in September we are contemplating our future and deciding what sort of country we want to be or, perhaps more precisely, whether to continue being a country at all.

P.T.:  What do you think about the way the Better Together campaign has been conducted to preserve the union?

J.C.:  Unfortunately, British culture and history, the very things which should be the foundation of the Better Together campaign, have hardly featured at all thus far in the debate but, sadly, this is far from surprising. Most of our politicians, commentators and academics suffer from a tremendous liberal guilt complex over the legacy of British colonialism and historic English aggression towards her immediate neighbours; therefore, out of sheer moral weakness, they have largely conceded the argument to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists. They dare not even mention such things as common purpose, shared destiny and historic ties of friendship and co-operation for fear they will be laughed to scorn and branded an imperial apologist.

P.T.:  Why do you think so many people have dismissed these aspects of Britishness?

J.C.:  Many have chosen to take the easy way out and claim that Britishness is a meaningless concept only to be given meaning by the individual or ignored completely according to personal preference. In the bleakly parochial view of such people, one can only be authentically English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish (as though they were comparatively simple to define!) but I find this utterly absurd; our identities, national and otherwise, are composed of multiple complex, interconnected cultural strata and are made infinitely richer for being so - should a man choose between being a Basque and a Spaniard, or a woman between being, say, a Marylander and an American?

P.T.:  You telling me about an application form you signed recently. What are your feelings about the way identity options were presented to you in it?

J.C.:  Upon reaching the end of the application form, I was asked, after the usual, highly impertinent questions about my gender, potential disabilities and sexual orientation, to select what I considered to be my ethnic origin from a variety of alternatives (quite what bearing any of this has on a person's suitability for a job is something which has always baffled me - I always opt for "prefer not to say" on principle) when I noticed something to which I had previously never given much thought. Non-white British applicants were confined to options under the headings of "Black British" and "Asian British" whereas white applicants were offered the full complement of British national identities to choose from - "British", "English", "Irish", "Northern Irish", "Welsh", "Scottish", etc. Such identities as "Black English" or "Asian Welsh" are rarely expressed and so do not feature as demographic terms but why should this be the case? Just why do our ethnic minority countrymen feel more comfortable describing themselves as British rather than anything else regardless of whether they live in Birmingham, Belfast, Blantyre or Bangor?

P.T.:  What do you think is the reason behind this phenomenon?

J.C.:  Unlike our cowardly politicians, they, like their forebears in India, Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan and ex-British colonies all around the world, know what to be British means and why they are proud to call themselves so. For them, for me and for lovers and admirers of my beloved nation wherever they may live, Britishness is more than a culture - it is an ideal, an aspiration, even a dream. Differences of region, race and culture may divide us as a people but Britain unites us as a nation; truly, our story is that of the oldest and greatest melting pot in the world. Of course, the Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings and Normans all changed Britain permanently and immeasurably for the better, but what is more significant to me is what they failed to change and, even more importantly, how profoundly they were changed by her!

Our early past has been traditionally presented as one group of foreign invaders after another remorselessly suppressing the native culture and supplanting it with an alien one but recent historical and archaeological research has proven this simply is not the case. Instead, a more careful reading of our island story shows a very clear, consistent set of beliefs and practices that existed prior to Roman occupation, which indeed not only survived but positively thrived during all of the subsequent conquests and which eventually evolved into those values, customs and institutions we now regard as quintessentially British.

P.T.:  What would you consider foremost among these customs/institutions?

J.C.:  Love of personal liberty, freedom of expression, trial by jury, a hatred of cruelty and injustice, local government, the underdog spirit, a sense of fair play, the importance of history and tradition, tolerance, constitutional monarchy, strong communities, the stiff upper lip, resistance to dictatorship, parliamentary democracy, respect for private property, etc. It would of course be arrogant to the point of megalomania for me to claim that Britain holds an absolute monopoly on these things but, my own obvious partiality aside, I am struggling to think of a nation which has done better justice to them on such a grand scale, over so long and proud a history.

P.T.:  What is your opinion on the British Empire and the way that hit has cast something of a shadow of shame over those who have British identities?

J.C.:  Ah, yes, that unspeakably awful embarrassment to well-meaning, half-educated liberals everywhere: the British Empire. Perhaps that is the one thing on the venerable list of British virtues and institutions which is conspicuous by its absence. At the widely critically acclaimed opening ceremony of the London Olympics in 2012 (which I thought rather gaudy and vulgar but never mind), tremendous emphasis was laid on our literature, film, music, NHS, industrial revolution etc. But there was no acknowledgement whatsoever of Britain's almost single-handed contribution towards spreading good administration, honest politics and the rule of law all around the world. Indeed, a stranger observing such edifying spectacles as James Bond and the Queen pretending to leap out of a plane and Rowan Atkinson playing a one-note synthesizer with the London Symphony Orchestra would be forgiven for thinking that we'd never so much as strayed beyond our shores let alone established the largest empire in human history which, at its apogee, covered almost a quarter of the planet.

Unfortunately, this very deliberate campaign to whitewash over the Empire and its achievements is nothing new and certainly doesn't lack for volunteers, not least in Britain itself; many are terribly sincere but ignorant liberals or New Labour zealots who seem to detest our history (a prejudice which invariably leads them to squander once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for genuinely patriotic celebrations in favour of insipid, anaemic affairs like the ludicrous Millennium Dome) whereas others are simply dishonest, deliberately distorting our history by highlighting its faults whilst carefully avoiding its virtues.

P.T.: What do you think about the way Hollywood portrays Britain/the British Empire on screen?

 J.C.:  Such things occur frequently and even on the most mundane level, e.g. entertaining but unhistorical cinematic drivel such as Braveheart, The Patriot and Pocahontas - all of which ridiculously romanticised their subjects and vilified the English to the point of disconnection from reality. Yes, I know its trashy Hollywood fiction and shouldn't make any difference and, indeed, wouldn't were our current education system much better instead! The scariest thing about die Große Lüge (the big lie) is that it actually works unless it's refuted.

P.T.:  So what’s your personal view on the benefits of the Empire?

J.C.:  I am writing, as you've no doubt gathered, as a convinced imperialist - by which I mean that I believe the case for the British Empire as one of the greatest things ever visited upon an undeserving world has been proved, open and shut. Of course, like all great human endeavours, it had its faults (some, like slavery, were terribly grievous) and they remain undeniable, indelible blots on our historical record but what nation since time began has been totally blameless? If history is, as the cynics say, just one long catalogue of theft, conquest and slaughter then surely there can be no dispute that Britain was second to none in these things? We were, and remain I think at heart, a nation of buccaneering merchant adventurers and we should be proud of the fact, not only because it has made us who we are but, more importantly still, because it has made so much of the world what it is today.

You may well have heard it said that Britain conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind; a clever little phrase but I feel there is far more sophistry there than sophistication - presence of mind, by all means, but certainly not absence of it. For myself, I believe the Empire was founded on and sustained by many things, most of them paradoxical: avarice and Protestantism, idealism and cynicism, compassion and cruelty, policy and lunacy, commerce and thievery, strategy and accident, duty, arrogance, ignorance, curiosity, expediency and, last but by no means least, a fanatical determination to beat the French to it! And the most sublime irony of all is that, for all of the lust for power and plunder which motivated our ancestors (just as that which inspired our Saxon forebears to cross the North Sea centuries before), they left their colonies far, far better places than they found them.

P.T.:  What would be your answer to the charge the British Imperial project was particularly brutal?

J.C.:  If, as I passionately believe, that Britain was unsurpassed in her ruthlessness, rapacity and commercial aggression then she was also unmatched in her commitment to establishing freedom, democracy, prosperity, sound government and the rule of law wherever the Union Jack was flown. As a force to enlighten and civilise the world, the British Empire was unique and, if proof were required, one need only compare the condition of our former territories with their present state. At best, as in India, Malaysia, Singapore, Ghana, Botswana and numerous other smaller countries where the British legacy remains strongest, the people are, to say the least, certainly no more wisely nor humanely governed than they were under the Empire; at worst, independence (often, laughably, referred to as freedom) has been an absolute disaster, as in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Somalia, Burma, Yemen and various other previously stable, thriving, law-abiding nations now transformed beyond all recognition into bankrupt, bloody dictatorships riven by extremism, corruption, terrorism and violence. 

P.T.:  What do you think about the way the Empire came to an end?

J.C.:  There can be no question that the Empire had to end eventually; however, it was the reckless haste in which it was done that was largely responsible for the ensuing chaos and tragedy in many territories which immediately followed British withdrawal, e.g. in 1947, the Labour government under Clement Attlee were so terribly keen to partition India and get out that their callous stupidity caused the displacement of over fourteen million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and the consequent mass migration (the largest in recorded history) lead to such carnage, riot and disorder that nearly one million people died as a result. Furthermore, those who were so active in accelerating the Empire's dissolution also bear their share of the blame; including, sadly, the United States who rather myopically took such pleasure in twisting the imperial lion's tail and now wonders why places like the Middle East are in perpetual turmoil - it'd be almost funny if it weren't so tragic.

Anyway, perhaps all of this explains why, for many people, Britishness remains an awkward subject; although, ironically, from my experience, the overwhelming majority of people who feel (or at least claim to feel) angry or ashamed by the legacy of British colonialism are generally the descendents of the colonisers whereas the descendents of the colonised are actually only too proud to call themselves British precisely because of, rather than in spite of, what the Empire did for their forebears in Pakistan, Kenya, Jamaica and elsewhere, as I suggested earlier. Ah, well, who knows? Still, we did what we did - it was definitely worth doing and nobody could've done it better, or even half as well.

P.T.:  Why do you think that so many Scots have come forward with such antipathy towards their British identity during the course of this referendum?

J.C.:  Sadly, I do think there is a huge wellspring of latent anti-English sentiment (which has steadily grown as the UK's overall standing in the world has declined) for the SNP to draw upon and, for many, the independence vote represents nothing more than a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get back at Westminster. Indeed, the very notion of Scottish nationalism is founded largely upon a narrow-minded, bitter, deeply parochial hatred for and rivalry with their English neighbours (just listen to the unofficial national anthem, that dismal dirge "Flower of Scotland") and it's certainly no coincidence that the SNP pushed so hard, and sadly successfully, for 16- and 17-year-olds to be allowed a vote in the referendum, as they are by far the most susceptible to this sort of nonsense.

P.T.:  What do you think is responsible for the SNP’s rise to power as of late?

J.C.:  The truth is that what really lies behind the growing strength of the SNP's cause is that, for many years, the Scots have felt so increasingly isolated from the prosperity, advancement and job-creation in the South East of England and London in particular (a complaint with which we in Northern England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all too familiar!) that they now no longer truly feel a part of the UK anymore and so they can see no other way forward but secession from the union. The Scots have enjoyed, and understandably so, the steady trickle of powers devolved to Holyrood since 1997 and a considerably higher level of per capita public spending (including free prescriptions, free tuition fees, etc. which I very much doubt they’d be able to maintain on the existing tax rates without Westminster subsidy) than the rest of the UK.

P.T.:  But do you think of the lure of independence, in and of itself, might be a persuasive hook for seperation?

J.C.:  Actually, the vision Alex Salmond is offering the Scots in the name of “independence” is something of a fraud anyway; keeping the Queen as your head of state, retaining the pound sterling as your currency (with interest rates set "abroad" by the Bank of England) and ceding your hard-won national sovereignty to the EU as soon as the votes have been counted as he hopes to do isn't really my idea of independence! Much as the SNP might hate it, the reality is that the economic future of an independent Scotland would rest almost entirely upon factors over which they would have either limited or no control whatsoever: their share of the sadly not inconsiderable UK national debt (at least £150 billion although, after negotiation, it could be double that) and the terms under which it must be repaid would give them and successive administrations a good deal of financial trouble for many decades to come.

The Scots don’t even know whether they'll be allowed to keep the pound sterling at all (the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated categorically that they won't, the EU is, quite understandably, extremely reluctant to allow them to join the crisis-stricken euro instead and establishing your own currency is a mightily expensive business indeed). Independence is a massive financial gamble and I think it's only when they actually go to vote that the sheer enormity of the risk the Scottish people are considering will dawn on them and the majority of them will decide to play safe and vote to remain within the UK.

P.T.:  Aside from the referendum, what are your personal political beliefs?

J.C.:  I've always been a Tory ever since I became interested in politics several years ago; however, I've largely abandoned my faith in capitalism (at least insofar as we've hitherto practiced it), secularism, classical liberalism and the market as the ultimate impartial, efficient economic mechanism, and now the position closest to my views is that of a High (or traditionalist) Tory. High Toryism is much more of an attitude than a hard-and-fast ideology like Socialism and which emphasis tradition, the Church, strong local community, the rights and responsibilities of the aristocracy, integrity and duty in public office, etc. It is, in short, the complete antithesis of everything the modern mainstream parties (including, sadly, the modern Tory party) offer us in the UK.

My economic awakening came a couple of years ago thanks entirely to one author to whom I already owed so much and cannot recommend highly enough to you if you haven't read any of his work; at the dawn of the twentieth century, the superlatively wonderful G.K. Chesterton (in collaboration with the great Hilaire Belloc) formulated the only economic philosophy based entirely upon Catholic social teaching and it goes by the rather unfortunate, ironically Communist-esque name of Distributism.

P.T.:  Can you explain what you mean by Distribution exactly?

J.C.:  To borrow a quote from Chesterton: "The modern world is not evil; in some ways it is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues." Both Conservatism and Liberalism have great advantages as well as terrible faults and it is the beauty of Distributism that it enables us to enjoy the fruits of these philosophies whilst restraining their destructive excesses. Very briefly, Distributism advocates a via media between the evils of unfettered capitalism on the one hand and the perils of state Socialism on the other through spreading the ownership of property and the means of production as broadly as possible to individuals in the form of small businesses, not-for-profit organisations and local co-operative enterprises throughout the land (instead of concentrating it in the hands of large, faceless corporations or the state as we do currently) and replacing rapacious competition with Christian co-operation as the core driver of economic growth and wealth creation.

P.T.:  As someone from an Anglo-Irish background, what’s your opinion on the divided and divisive state of affairs in Ireland?

J.C.:  As a patriotic Englishman, I deplore the craven manner in which successive governments have appeased the former IRA members and collaborators now walking the corridors of power in Belfast yet, as a Catholic of Irish heritage, I am all too aware of England's extensive history of persecution, oppression and violence against the Irish people and cannot help but wonder just how long we were expecting them to let us get away with it.

P.T.:  What do you think the historical beginning of this antipathy between England and Ireland was?

J.C.:  The genesis of the historically negative English attitude towards the Irish is very simple. The Gaelic Christian kings and noble families were among the oldest in Europe but, rather than this being something worthy of admiration, the problem was that they were so old as to be effectively pagan, not in their beliefs, but in their origins, rituals and ceremonies. Unlike such relative arrivistes as Clovis the Frank who looked to the Pope to provide legitimacy to their kingship, the Irish aristocracy needed only to look back to their own history to find their authority as rulers; thus, to the deep disapproval of Rome and other European noble houses, they were able to unite and celebrate fully both their ancient pre-Christian royal heritage and their orthodox Christian faith.

The Irish Church too began to show disturbing tendencies towards independence from Roman authority (mixed sex monasteries, married clergy, etc.) so that it finally became necessary for our only English Pope, Adrian IV, to issue his laudabilitur empowering Henry II to invade Ireland and bring her Church and government under English, and effectively Roman, authority. Thus began the Norman conquest of Ireland in 1167 and the beginning of nearly 850 years of bloodshed and misery.

P.T.:  Do you have any thoughts on how the Irish Question might possibly be solved in the future?

J.C.:  The supreme tragedy of the Irish Question is that what makes it most difficult to solve is the very policy that we, the English, have pursued for centuries (stuffing Ulster with pro-Union Protestants who have no wish to live under the rule of their Catholic nationalist neighbours) and which was a wonderful idea when we had the political will and resources to be an imperialist power but today means that allowing the Republic to claim the rest of the six remaining northern counties would necessitate turning our backs on hundreds of thousands of people who consider themselves just as British as anyone living in any other part of the UK. Riot and disorder (perhaps even a civil war?) on a scale the like of which has not been seen in that troubled land for centuries would doubtless follow any such decision by the British government to cede Ulster to the Republic but, regrettably, I'm struggling to see a future in which that isn't a likely, if rather distant, occurrence.

The solution of an independent Kingdom of Ireland being a full, voluntary part of the Commonwealth realms is certainly a novel one (and all the more ironic when you consider how desperately we're currently trying to hold onto the UK we already have!) and one I should love to see happen but, with the present state of public opinion, I really can't see it. But it's definitely something we should devote every effort to achieving.

P.T.:  Could you tell us about some of your personal interests, hobbies, and plans for the future?

J.C.:  I am a lover of literature, poetry, history, philosophy and science, an aspiring learner of foreign languages, a devourer of good food and drink, and a keen amateur runner and weightlifter. It would be an exceptional understatement to say that life has turned out the way I'd expected even as little as five years ago, but I'm certainly not complaining - I know that matters rest in the hands of One infinitely wiser and more powerful than myself and I'm content just to enjoy the journey as it unfolds.

P.T.:  Thank you so much, Mr. Carney, for everything.

J.C.:  Aw, you’re very, very welcome.

Interview with Rachel Franchi, Resident of Worcestershire

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight I’ll be speaking with Rachel Franchi, a history and psychology student from Worcestershire. Hello, Ms. Franchi.

Rachel Franchi:  Hi.  

P.T.:  Could you talk a little bit about your background and any identities you see yourself as having?

Rachel Franchi:  I was born and live the West Midlands part of the country. I also have some Welsh blood in me from my Grandfather, who settled down in this area. I see myself as English and British, and I'm proud to be both.

P.T.:  What does being British mean to you?

R.F.:  Being British to me means feeling proud of the unity with the three other countries that make up Britain and taking pride in the history and the culture of these countries and the bond that we share. It make have been very shaky at times, but we've overcome it all, and I believe we're stronger together.

P.T.:  What are your feelings about the monarchy?

R.F.:  As a Brit, and a relatively poor Brit at that, I know it's quite easy to feel resentful towards the Royal Family for all the luxury that's placed at their feet merely because they happen to have been born into the right family. But I think that a lot of people tend to overlook the fact that being the monarch of a country must be incredibly draining, emotionally. The Queen rarely smiles- I mean really smiles- in public because she's been trained to keep her emotions hidden away. And, of course, there's plenty of way that Royals must never be seen to behave. They must always be seen as being respectable and in control of themselves- and rightly so- but it must be hard at times, especially if they are younger.

Many people nowadays feel that having a monarch is pointless and a waste of money. However, while I can see their point, I would be very sad to lose our monarchy, which, literally, gives the United Kingdom its 'crown and glory'. I think it's important for us to have an apolitical figurehead to represent our country, and I can't help but feel proud whenever I see our Queen doing what she does best, representing our country amid the rest of the world's leaders!

P.T.:  Could you tell me a little about your own personal aspirations/interests?

R.F.:  Most people who know me would describe me as a bit of an oddball, but I (for the most part!) take pride in being different. I’m a huge animal lover (excluding spiders!) and my cats are her most loved companions. I also sing a bit and have taught myself to yodel. I love the sound of the electric guitar, and one day might actually learn to play it. By far, my biggest interest is naval history, particularly 'Nelson's navy.' I hope to be a naval historian one day and help re-establish the connection Britain once so proudly had with the sea.

P.T.: Thank you for letting me interview you, Ms. Franchi!

R.F.:  You’re most welcome. Bye for now!

Interview with Jonny Lipsham, Professional Musician

Pearl of Tyburn:  Now I’ll be interviewing Johnny Lipsham. Good day, Mr. Lipsham.

Jonny Lipsham: Hi there.

P.T.:  Could you tell me a bit about your background and cultural/political/religious etc. identities you may have?

J.L.:  I am a Christian, ethnically and racially a Jew, born in Scotland but lived 31 years in England - so have a messed up accent - and have been a member of the Labour Party since 1990. I am a professional musician, vocalist, songwriter, recording and mixing engineer, and a music educator and vocal coach.

P.T.:  What is your opinion on the Scottish Independence Referendum?

J.L.:  I am a passionate and committed Unionist. I will be voting NO. My opinion of the whole thing? - Biggest waste of time and tax payer's money in British History. Scotland is at the forefront of British innovation, ingenuity, bravery, pioneering spirit, and making the impossible possible. We are the cutting edge of the sword of the Union. We have been since 1707, and I see NO reason that breaking the sword will make any of its constituent parts stronger or better.

P.T.:  What do you think of the current campaigns for and against? What is your opinion on the way they are being run?

J.L.:  “Yes Scotland” is fighting a campaign based on LIES, and increasingly in these latter days, fear, bitterness and anger. Better Together have been slow to debunk mythologies and the invented fables of the Yes campaign, leaving that to us on Facebook and Twitter; which is a poor idea and leaves us ordinary folks fighting a war with no support from our commanders.

P.T.:  How would you recommend the Better Together improve their game and better support their people in the street and online in these coming weeks?

J.L.:  I have seen much better coordination in recent weeks, but I think they, and we need to communicate more clearly and I believe that the senior leaders of BT need to make some kind of show of encouragement, endorsement and support for us on the streets and online.

P.T.:  What do you think of the decision to let 16 years old vote?

J.L.:  A major blunder by Salmond. It was a clear attempt to out-flank. It has back-fired on him.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alistair Darling and the way he has been handling things?

J.L.:  I’ve actually met him a few times. I used to live and work in London in the jazz scene, but I know Lib Dem Simon Hughes very well. He helped get me in to Parliament for PMQs when John Smith was Labour Leader. I first met him around about that time. And a few times since. Great guy. He is exceedingly intelligent, but also possibly the calmest, coolest guy under pressure I have ever known.

P.T.: Well, we can only hope that he and his campaign will make it through to the finish successfully. Thank you for letting me record your thoughts, Mr. Lipsham.

J.L.:  You’re welcome.

Interview with “Wyndysascha”, Legal Student from London

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’ll now be speaking with “Wyndysascha”, a resident of the great city of London, England, capital of the United Kingdom. It’s nice to have you on board!

Wyndysascha:  Thank you!

P.T.:  Can you give a little summary about yourself and your background?

W.S.:  I'm British, of English and Scottish ancestry. I was born in England, baptized into the Church of Scotland, and moved to Scotland at a young age. I now live in London, UK, where I attended university for a bachelor’s degree in history, and am now studying for a second degree in law. Although I haven't always lived in London, I do consider myself a Londoner (and I find it difficult now to imagine living anywhere else - a typical Londoner's conceit!). I am also a recent convert to the Catholic Faith.

P.T.:  Could you please tell me what your British heritage means to you?   

W.S.:  I've always seen my heritage as one of a thoughtful, measured, civilized, yet firm approach to tolerance, fairness, liberty, and the rule of law. We don't submit to tyrants; but we also don't have blood-in-the-streets revolutions either (although we do occasionally riot and decapitate our king!). Nowadays, though, we seem not only to fail to live up to our own image of ourselves, but we don't even know what that image is.

P.T.:  Why do you think “Britain” is such a good thing?

W.S.:  The reason why "Britain" is such a good thing is because, no matter what the cause of its inception, the history of conflict between the nations of The British Isles produced an authentically "British" idea of liberty. No matter how hypocritical we are in applying it, that is what the Union stands for, and why it should continue - above and beyond all other considerations, the Union represents how different nations can co-exist in one state and remain at liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think of the assertation that nations should, as a matter of necessity, have their own states?

W.S.:  The nations of Britain don't necessarily need their own states; they just have to love our liberty enough that they force the politicians of the Union to work towards it. Things like the European Union are bureaucratic exercises, and simply can't evoke that feeling of loyalty. The United Kingdom, as with the United States, represents an idea, and an ideal, of how people should live and what we should be willing to fight to preserve. That we've got to where we are now is a failure to hold faith to liberty.

P.T.:  Could you clarify what you mean when you say “liberty”, as opposed to “freedom”?

W.S.:  I say Liberty, and not Freedom, for a reason: "Liberty", understood as a British concept, is the God-given right to quiet enjoyment of one's private and family life and the state protecting us as we need it to; "Freedom" always seemed to me to be the running-around shouting, do-whatever-you-want thing.  It implies a positive effort of will, not simply a tendency to mobbishness and licence.

P.T.:  What do you think the active moral responsibility of the Union is?

W.S.:  The Union has an active moral responsibility to remind the nations of why the Union is a Good Thing and what it stands for. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Union was created in a shady politician's deal that the people, at the time, were overwhelmingly opposed to. But that didn't stop us coming to realize what the true character of the Union should be: a coming-together of equals established so that subjects could live their lives peaceably, free from undue interference.

That ethos came from centuries of intra-British wars, turmoil, and upheaval, and our common battles against monstrous tyrants that would make us slaves in our own country. The Union could be the fruit of all that, and prove that the world should draw closer together, find common ground, and agree on virtues to uphold instead of flying apart, with everyone trying to look out for themselves. We could just give-up and call it a few-centuries-old convenience and be done with it, but I think we'd all be the poorer for it.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on the monarchy?

W.S.:  The same historical connectivity applies to the British Constitutional Monarchy. It's very difficult to defend monarchy as an institution in the modern world (although not the need for a single strong leader of government, such as the US President). But the monarchy, traditionally, has been the source of authority for the law.  In The King's Speech, King George VI says that he's only the King if the people believe he speaks for them.

An overarching theme of British history is the reining-in of the Crown, so it didn't evolve into a Continental-style despotism but one rooted in the "ancient laws" of the people. People had to see the monarchy as a product of our ancient liberties: not as in-your-face as, say, the explicit American declaration that the government is the servant of the people, but rather an organic relationship where We were loyal to the Crown, and the Crown upheld the things that made Us, Us.

P.T.:  How do you think the view of the monarchy has altered in present times?

W.S.:  Now, because they have lost their sense of common nationhood and are ignorant of their history, people don't understand how the monarchy is a source of authority any more. That has a terrible impact on British ideas on Law, and so on the Union itself. Laws in this country derive their authority from the Crown, and because they are promulgated by the Crown-In-Parliament. If you don't think the Crown possesses authority, as the authentic voice of the ancient laws and liberties of the people, why obey the law?  We end up being a nation of laws obeyed purely through fear of compulsion, not one where laws are respected.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the importance and meaning of history?

W.S.:  I believe that "History" as a cultural enterprise (not merely an academic one) is the set of honest stories about the past that we tell each other to reinforce our sense of self and community. Despite what some in the Eighteenth Century thought, life cannot be a purely rational exercise. That's not how people function. We are under a positive moral duty to make sure that our stories are true and morally good: when we stop concentrating on honest history and stop telling these stories to our children, we eventually lose our cohesiveness.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the Braveheart craze?

W.S.:  It’s easy to stick people in front of a TV playing Braveheart and then tell them it's the end of the story. But it's not the end. A simple look at British history would show that the heart of the Union is about nations fired by their own sense of liberty and independence being able to come together and work in common cause. I'm not unaware of the irony that the virtues associated with unity and liberty arose out of intra-British conquest, oppression, and struggle but, having fought and hated and brutalized, by the Grace of God we now have a higher standard to hold ourselves to.

P.T.:  What do you think might have made more Scottish people see the Union in a positive light?

W.S.:  Scotland's current generation might be more well-disposed to the Union if they saw how the original unification of Britain, though unpopular, became popular over time because of the mutually-beneficial nature of the arrangement. The Union forestalled Scottish bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme's failure. It brought a greater measure of peace to the Isles by excluding continental interference in Scottish affairs.

The Union allowed Scottish access to English (then British) markets.  In short, the Union allowed Scotland to punch well above its weight on a world stage. Not only this, but Scots have always been more than capable of holding the highest offices of state in a British Union; Scots are not the oppressed minority that Scottish Nationalists would like to portray themselves as, but rather are and always have been active participants in the Union at all levels. 

P.T.:  What do you think of the nationalist presentation that other people view Scots as having been disgraced or suppressed by the Union?

W.S.:  The peddled idea that "other people see Scots as brought low and wallowing in self-pity, and the Scots see themselves in a similar way" is the worst kind of rubbish: Scottish Nationalists get to present Independence as a solution for a perception that barely exists outside nasty right-wing media and pub loud-mouths, or gloss over that it's one implausible approach to dealing with something best dealt with within the Union anyway.  If self-respect and a sense of nationhood are so dreadfully lacking in the Scottish people, why not try to tackle this supposed problem within the Union, the institution that offers greater stability, greater opportunities, greater access to a world stage?!

Furthermore, the Union has never subsumed "Scottish" institutions beneath "British" ones. This flexibility is part of what makes the Union work. Constitutional protection has always been afforded to a separate Kirk, education system, and so on. Legislation, boards of control and state departments have been established in response to Scottish concerns over Scotland's needs. Development of devolved institutions continues today. If one believes that Scotland should become an independent, sovereign nation again then of course it is laudable that the process is peaceful, and through the political process. But that the process exists, has an historical presence, and is a viable route for future change - even if that change is independence itself - is a factual rejection of the idea that "Britain" somehow suppresses Scottish liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think are the main issues at the heart of the independence debate?

W.S.:  The true issue at stake in the whole Independence debate is this: unless there's some sort of complete, fundamental change in the governance, public morals, and general education of the people of the United Kingdom, then the Union is doomed to fail eventually. The pro-union Better Together campaign is fighting on the technical downsides of Independence. But people want more than that. I'd bet that any number of people voting For independence are sensible, sceptical people who don't believe the Yes Campaign's promises to give them everything they ever wanted without having to pay anything to get it - they're voting for independence because they've been presented with a vision of the world that makes them feel like they're part of a community again.

P.T.:  What do you think is “the best form of government”, if any?

W.S.:  I believe firmly that any state can only derive its authority from the informed consent of the governed.  This, obviously, doesn't necessarily imply either democracy or a republic, still less any inherent value to referenda.  However, I question what authority an independent Scottish state would have coming into existence via a brief moment of mawkish pseudo-patriotism.  There are nations around the world who are brutally oppressed by governments and regimes, who have a legitimate argument to make that they'd be better off with their own governors and states.  No-one oppresses the Scots, nor are the Scots lacking any opportunities within the Union.  Other independence movements elsewhere are similarly shallow. Who oppresses the Québécois, for instance?  What opportunities for localised government and international standing do they lack?  Like the Scots, they live in mature, rights-respecting states with civilized flexibility out of which they've done remarkably well and, when bumpy periods are passed, probably will do in future.

P.T.:  What do you think of the way individual politicians and parties affect the debate?

W.S.:  The manipulations of canny politicians lead people to forget their own interests and (not a popular opinion, perhaps) their just allegiances and duties. Governments you dislike aren't a reason to fracture one's country: they're a reason to stick it out, campaign for your point of view, and take an active role in the process.  I dislike many aspects of Conservative Party policy, their fairly cheap and nasty approach to the poor being foremost.  I'd probably have similar feelings towards any future Labour or Liberal Democrat government.  But pretending that the Scottish nation is so utterly, fundamentally divorced in its opinions from any policy these parties could implement is Fiction, pure and simple. 

 Scottish Nationalists draw the distinction between "Scottish politicians" and "Westminster politicians" to foster the "us-and-them" mentality necessary to break Scots from the Union but that's politics, not some fundamental character of the Scottish nation.  It's rare to find someone who identifies wholly with their elected leaders - we laugh at our MPs' supposed ineptitude regularly, Americans have their "clowns in Congress", and so on - and all the "Westminster politicians" argument does is piggy-back on this sentiment.

P.T.:  How do you think a lack of true patriotism towards Britain has contributed to the Scottish nationalist movement?

W.S.:  Our sense of Britishness has decayed to the point where the Union may be about to split. The past sixty years of British history have been the systematic dismantling of emotional attachment to one's own country. "Patriotism" is, apparently, something for right-wing thugs; the left/centre-left sneer at anyone who thinks that there's such a thing as "British liberty". Say what you want about the nationalists, they’re not stupid: they understand "History" far better than the Better Together campaign appears to (the fact is that they're cynically manipulating that history notwithstanding).  Again: although the Union provides tangible, real-life benefits to its citizens, its raison d'être cannot simply be measured in pounds, shillings, and pence.

I'm not naive. I know that "patriotism" is something that is used by the wicked on the gullible. But it's not a bad thing in and of itself, if it's attached to a good and noble cause. Love can warp easily into a greater, more general evil because it's an emotion, which is why love has to be married to reason and virtue to endure.  Love of one's country can warp easily into terrible things.  This is the line that Scottish Nationalists are skirting.  They're using Scots' love of the Scottish nation to foster division rather than unity, or a unity that is narrow and parochial, and encouraging self-pitying reactive chauvinism rather than genuine national character.  These things are being set against an authentic, British idea of liberty - something that emphasises common ground between different groups - in favour of a weak, ivory-towered concept of national freedom that isn't so much written solidly in history but slides greasily off its pages.

P.T.:  Could you wrap up this interview with a summary of the main problem as it stands now?

W.S.:  The sum of the problem is that we are forgetting our history, our unique sense of liberty, and our belief that our nations have a common centre that organically emanates authority but also derives its authority from us.  It can only end in division, and "suspect government" that has all the trappings of "rights" and "democracy" but enforces a deadening cultural uniformity on us.  Scottish Independence won't see some glorious rebirth of the Scottish Nation: it will say to the world that one of the foremost partners in the great, historical Projects of Union and Liberty has decided that it's just not worth the bother any more.  We don't have long to impart this on the Scottish people, and I'll be praying that it's a vision they can be persuaded to cleave to.

P.T.:  As an aside, can you tell me a little about your personal interests?

W.S.:  I maintain an interest in British and American History. My period of study is the Long Eighteenth Century, as affecting Britain and her empire (especially in North America). I've probably sucked up too much Eighteenth-Century pamphleteering, as I'm a big fan of the constitutional forms and theories of the time: whether the constitutional, parliamentary monarchy of Britain; or the federal, checks-and-balances American Republic ('The Federalist Papers' being one of my favourite works).

I also follow politics and consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road centre-right pragmatist with an attachment to ideas of individual liberty. I enjoy playing games, especially strategy ones, and I also love playing 'Minecraft'. I’m in the process of taking up blogging about his new Catholic life, politics, and gaming against the backdrop of ‘Minecraft’ (www.wyndysascha.com), as well as producing videos and vlogs on YouTube. I also try to deepen my newfound Catholic faith whenever I can.

P.T.:  Thank you very much for putting down so many excellent thoughts for this interview. I wish you all the best.

W.S.: Thanks; you too! 

Interview with Damien Davies, Unionist Activist

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we’ll be speaking with Damien Davies, Unionist Activist. Hello, Mr. Davies.

Damien Davies:  Hello.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate about your background and what identities you might see yourself as having, culturally, nationally, religiously, and otherwise?

D.D.:  I am a 31-year-old British Person who happens to live in North West England, Runcorn, 9 miles downstream from Liverpool. Religiously, Church of England, although have Broad Catholic Leanings but to not regularly practice.

I have always regarded myself British first (as it is more inclusive) and English second, although was born in Scotland to Parents of Welsh. I consider England to be one of the Historic Countries in The United Kingdom of Great Britain (a state as it were), but The United Kingdom to be my country. England, Wales and Scotland are all internal regions of the UK, but they make up a whole.

P.T.:  Where in Scotland were you born? Do you feel Celtic at all in your mix of identities, and what do you think about the issue of Celtic language preservation, such as Welsh?

D.D.:  I was born in Edinburgh, raised in England and have Welsh/Irish Decent. I have no affinity for Celtic identity even with my Scottish/Irish and Welsh background, but I do believe that traditional Celtic languages should be preserved as much as possible.

P.T.:  What are your feelings with regard to the Scottish independence referendum?

D.D.:  It is an affront to everything The United Kingdom represents and is absolutely heartbreaking to me.

P.T.:  What do you see the UK as representing, to you and to the world?

D.D.:  I see the collective diversity and comradeship of this Island as our biggest asset and not a weakness that the separatists would have Scotland believe. Look around the world, 50 percent of inventions; the locomotive, the telephone, television, World Wide Web and the automobile, etc. etc. All are British innovation within the Union.

For good or ill, the Greatest Empire the world has seen which turned English into the 2nd or 3rd most spoken language in the world, just logistically for us is splendid. The colours of the Red-white and blue of our flag are in most overseas territories and former colonies.

P.T.:  What would you say about the post-imperial slump that seems to have affected many Brits psychologically?

D.D.:  It has not affected me in the slightest; the United Kingdom does not owe me, a typical working class man in the North of England, anything. Frankly the people it has affected need to get over themselves

P.T.:  Do you think that countries owe their people anything? What do you think the role of patriotism plays, and what do you think people owe their country?

D.D.:  I do feel that the Country or State owes the Taxpayer a lot, good defence, reasonable priced housing to buy and a chance to make a pound, gainful employment as it were. For this, the Country is owed our allegiance in turn. That’s patriotism.

P.T:  What about the supposed historical arguments brought up by separatists?

D.D.:  Historical Battles of the indigenous peoples of Britain is old hat, 400 years old hat. The British built this Union with British hands is a much more immediate reality than fighting for something that you have no personal stake in.

I would not fight for that cause, I would fight for the cause to preserve the Greatest Social, Political and Economic Union the world has ever known. Twice in the last Century our forebears gave their lives for defend our freedoms. That is worth a lot more than the separatists can conceive.

P.T.:  What symbol of Britain stands out most in your mind? What do you think would happen to the Union Jack should Scotland break away?

D.D.:  For me, it is the Symbol of Britannia. She is embossed on the Train Bridge in Runcorn so get a daily reminder of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Union Jack will be no more if the separatists get their way.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts about the Saxon vs. Celtic analogies and the way that Ireland and Scotland are often compared?

D.D.:  Ireland is not Great Britain; the Irish Troubles are largely over with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Bringing that in the debate would just antagonize the whole peace process in Northern Ireland, who resoundingly decided they were British. Let that be an end to that issue. This is about the Constitutional Future of Great Britain, not Scotland as the separatists would like to make out.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on Federalization and the home rule bodies in the UK? Also are you a part of any political party?

D.D.:  I vote, but am not affiliated with any political party. I do not agree with federalization and home rule bodies, but that is neither here nor there because it is here. I can elaborate on that, if you wish.

P.T:  Please do.

D.D:  Federalization works best with Large Areas of expansive land which is sparsely populated relative to size, Great Britain or the UK could fit inside Texas, just one of the 50 States in the USA.

So the conceit with Devolution in the UK is that Scotland and Wales are NOT British but Scottish and Welsh respectively. This is a problem as it teaches Scots and Welsh to regard themselves as something other than British

P.T.:  Under the circumstances of home rule existing in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, do you think England should have a home rule body?

D.D:  In theory that is a sound idea; at the minute the UK pays for English MP's in the UK Parliament and for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too, but now three of the home nations have two sets of MP's so basically there in a job share with each other but with no reduced hours or wages. So we are all paying more cash for more politicians, which there are too many of already.

P.T.:  What do you think about the SNP argument about Tory Rule that they hope will help advocate independence among mostly anti-Tory Scots?

D.D.:  Scotland is the only Country in the United Kingdom which has ever returned over 50% of votes to the Tories, in addition when the UK General Election rolls around we vote as ONE in the Unified Great Britain, the "us" and "them" mentality is merely a confection drummed up by the SNP, which I deplore. Tories have more MSPs in Holyrood than the SNP have in Westminster also, and yet the SNP have a mandate to Break-up-Britain...

P.T.:  What's your opinion of Alex Salmond?

D.D.:  I cannot repeat it but there is a lot of expletive deleted in there. It is telling that the SNP were against the National Minimum Wage in 1997 and Devolution in 1997 also, against more powers of the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 and supported the dreaded Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power in the 1970's. She was known as milk snatcher in England too. It seems as if this party’s primary function is to antagonize and provoke.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alistair Darling? What is your opinion on the debates that took place between him and Salmond?

D.D.:  Alistair Darling is a decent chap, but Salmond is an utter disgrace. The debates were okay, but Darling was way too nice.

P.T.:  What do you think is the best way to defeat Salmond?

D.D.:  VOTE NO! Hopefully there will be a vote of no confidence in the leadership of Mr. Salmond.

P.T.:  What methods do you think the Unionist campaign should use to bolster than no vote?

D.D.: I am offended it is actually been raised as a question. That's how much of a no-brainer the United Kingdom is to me. I feel as an Ideal, if the United Kingdom can say that we can achieve so much more together than apart, lots of Countries come and go, new Countries formed and regimes fall, not in Britain?

Because we have a tried, tested, true and stable form of Liberal Democracy, which is something other parts of the world can only dream of. This should be a source of pride that we can engage in this debate without violence and some out the other side stronger for it. And to be fair, if our United Kingdom is everything us Unionists think and believe it is we have nothing to worry about :) Better Together, always were.

P.T.:  What do you think about arguments turning the whole thing on its head, saying "smaller better", "weaker better", etc.?

D.D.:  I would say that collectively the United Kingdom has the 5th Largest Economy in the world and the second largest in the EU, but are the 80th largest Country in terms of Size, why would anybody wish to diminish this? I cannot abide the mentality which would see the separatists metaphorically cut of one of my healthy legs.

P.T.:  How do you feel personally affected by the concept of the British culture being split apart and ultimately dissolved as we know it?

As a British person, Nessie is part of my culture, as is the bagpipe and tartan. The separatists with to take this away from me. Imagine if there was a British Government voted in at the last general election trying to cut away Scotland, what would Scots call the rest of the United Kingdom?

P.T.:  Dirty rats, snakes-in-the-grass, etc.?

D.D.:  My sentiments exactly. My personal view is that the SNP got in on a protest vote against the Tories and Lib Dems climbing in the bed with them.

P.T.:  What's your opinion on the sterling issue?

D.D.:  Pound Sterling was the English Currency before the Acts of Union; the exchange of the Pound Scots to Sterling was 12 Pound Scots to 1 Pound Sterling, so no wonder the separatists want to keep it, but it would need to be the English currency as not to get all playground but it was England's first. I would not support an official currency union, have already written to my MP about that.

P.T.:  Again regarding Ireland, how would you respond to the nationalist assertation, "Well, lots of young nations struggled at first, like ROI, but got back on their feet...etc. etc."?

 D.D.:  Ireland is in the EUROZONE, how is that going again?

P.T.:  What are some of your personal interests/hobbies and what do you see for your future, of yourself and the UK?

D.D.:  I enjoy creative writing and write a lot of plays and screenplays in my spare time. I also enjoy photography, do a lot of hunting and angling, and am into movies in a big way.

Basically United Kingdom has been here for over 300 years and based on the success story of our Union I want the next 3,000 years, just sad that I will not be here to see it...our decedents will make us all proud to secure our Union and retain our Britishness.

P.T.:  Thanks, Mr. Davies. Thanks for everything.

D.D.:  No problem.

  

Interview with Donna Edmunds, Councillor for Lewes, Sussex

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we have Ms. Donna Edmunds from Sussex, England. Thank you for taking the time out for this.

Donna Edmunds: You're welcome.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate a little about your background and work?

D.E.:  Yes. I have a degree in Zoology, and after graduating spent a number of years trying out different careers. Eventually, in 2009 I got a job at the European Parliament with an MEP, doing research and other bits and pieces - writing blogs for him and helping to organise a conference, that sort of thing

I spent 18 months in Brussels, then a year in London working for an MP, then I stopped work to have my daughter, but have run a few projects on the side voluntarily since then. I'm also a councilor on my local District Council

P.T.:  Identity wise, do you see yourself having any particular national/cultural/religious identities? And do you consider yourself predominately English or British?

D.E.:  I consider myself to be equally British and English. My mother is an immigrant (she was born in Ukraine), so I also identify a little with people from an immigrant background - we have Russian dolls in the house, my mother and grandmother speak Russian to each other etc. But I've always felt very English/British, and not at all Russian or Ukrainian.

To me, being both English and British isn't a contradiction. I live in Sussex, which is on the South coast of England, as it's the same thing to me as saying "I'm English and Southern". England feels like a region of Britain that I identify with. So I don't see Scotland as a foreign country, but nor do I feel in any way Scottish (because I'm not!)

P.T.:  So what is your reaction to The Scottish Independence Referendum?

D.E.:  Well, I feel a little sad that there are people in Scotland who feel so strongly about independence that they would campaign so vigorously for a referendum. When I think about our history as a joined nation, I feel just as proud of achievements of Scottish people as I do of people from Yorkshire or Devon or Wales. We're all British, no matter where on the island we live. But if they want independence, that's up to them.

Having said that, if we English got a vote on Scottish independence in September, I'd be tempted to vote for Independence. But maybe I wouldn't actually vote that way when it came down to it. I don't know.

P.T.:  What issues make you lean that way?

D.E.:  At the moment the way devolution has taken place means that the Scottish get much more Government money spent on them than the English do. For example, if you're a Scottish student studying at a Scottish university you don't have to pay fees, whereas an English student studying at the same university does have to pay. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Also, the politicians in Scotland are very socialist. A (slightly mean) part of me thinks "let them have a go at socialism and see how it works out. They'll come back soon enough when the money runs out" But it's not a very noble way of viewing the whole thing, which is why I say that my emotional attachment to Scotland would probably prevail in the end.

P.T.:  Do you think there is a way of making government assistance programs fairer in all parts of the UK?

D.E.:  Not without reversing devolution. The problem is that all tax money is collected centrally, but then Scottish and Welsh parliamentarians get to set the rules on how they spend their money. It's no wonder that they keep giving their people freebies - all they have to do is demand more from Whitehall.

P.T.:  What do you think of the "historical" connections some Scottish nationalists have tried to make with Bannockburn, the Jacobites, etc.?

D.E.:  I think it's inevitable that they'll use history in that way to make their case. If their goal is to paint Scotland as having been conquered, so that they can claim to be setting Scotland free again, any historical imagery that brings that case to life will be used. I think it's up to those who don’t' want to see Scotland split from GB to do likewise, by highlighting our rich shared military and social history. And of course it must be pointed out that Scotland was never conquered, but the two countries were brought together under James.

P.T.:  Speaking of military, what sort of challenges do you think an independent Scotland would face without the armed forces and general international clout of the UK?

D.E.:  Militarily I don't think they'd face huge problems as a country. I can't see any other country wanting to invade Scotland any time soon. But there's no doubt that they would have a vastly reduced standing on the world stage, and would be unable to play a leading role in major strategic maneuvers - which of course they might be quite happy with, to be honest. The wars that Britain has joined over the last couple of decades haven't been very popular. They are talking about joining the EU though, so they'll have representation in Europe at least.

As for the military specifically, again, some of the Scottish regiments are highly regarded and have illustrious histories within the British army. Would they be dissolved? Would English people serving within them be asked to leave? Disentangling the affairs of the two nations would take quite some doing.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alex Salmond vs. Alistair Darling?

D.E.: Alex Salmond is a very accomplished politician. To even get as far as securing a referendum takes quite some doing. He's clearly charismatic and good at persuading people to back his cause.

Darling, by contrast, is a very workmanlike figure. Even as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is the highest ranking minister in the Cabinet, he was completely forgettable. I guess they chose him to front the campaign because he's Scottish and has held high office, but he's hardly the most inspirational of people. The whole 'No' campaign has been a bit lackluster, to be honest. So much so that it has occurred to me that they might be trying to lose!

P.T.:  What suggestions would you give to Better Together to improve things?

D.E.:  I think they need to paint a more positive picture of the Union in general, and appeal more to emotions. A lot of the debate is over whether people would be £200 richer or poorer if Scotland went independent. Well, you're talking about overturning 300 years of history and splitting countless families across two countries.

The nature of the debate should be more inspiring than how much money you'll have in your pocket in the short term. A little bit more discussion about how, by working together as fellow countrymen, Scots and Englishmen have accomplished all sorts of major achievements

P.T.:  Many of the people I have interviewed have said the exact same thing. How do you think that can be driven home to Better Together?

D.E.:  I'm not sure, really. It's not as if those sorts of things aren't being said out loud in our media, after all. A lot of people have commented on the uninspiring nature of the campaign. I think one of the problems is that it's not very fashionable to be patriotic at the moment. If you start talking about how Great Britain is people assume you're a bit of a bigot or racist. So perhaps they just feel embarrassed to be making that kind of appeal to emotion.

P.T.:  How do you think it might become more fashionable to be patriotic?

D.E.:  Oh, well, that's a big question! I think if UKIP, which is unashamedly patriotic, do well in the elections next year people might feel more comfortable expressing patriotic viewpoints. On the other hand, those who oppose UKIP have done so loudly and viciously, that people might feel more than ever that they couldn't say anything publically, even if they do vote UKIP at the ballot box.

It's mostly the fashionable London elite and the middle classes who find patriotism distasteful. How do you turn their opinions around? Can you? Who knows?!

This is why I say I wonder whether they really have their hearts in this campaign to keep Britain united.

P.T.:  Can you give me a little summary of UKIP policies?

D.E.:  First and foremost, we want Britain to leave the EU and become a sovereign nation again. We'd like to see Britain start to trade more freely with the rest of the world, and in particular restrengthen ties with the Commonwealth.

At home, we're a classical liberal party, so low taxes, small government, quite socially liberal. Although we have come under a lot of fire recently for saying that we'd like immigration to be better managed and for the total overall number of immigrants entering the country each year to be brought down, which isn't strictly speaking libertarian.

P.T.:  The UKIP did very well in the EU election, didn't it?

D.E.:  Came first.

P.T.:  What kind of power does that give the party?

D.E.:  None really. It makes it a little harder for the other parties to ignore us. For example Nigel Farage (the leader) has said that he will insist on being included in leaders’ debates at the next election. But it doesn't give us any electoral power.

P.T.:  Do you think pulling out of the EU would strengthen unity in the UK?

D.E.:  That's a good question. I don't know really, since devolution has given Scotland and Wales a more separate identity than they had before. I guess a case could be made for Britain being a sovereign nation once again and everyone pulling together to make it succeed. But I don't know how well that would go down in Scotland.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, what do you see in the future for your political career and personally?

D.E.: Well, I recently stood in the European Parliamentary elections in the South East, and missed out on getting a seat - but I am 'first reserve' on the list if anyone drops out, so I'm hoping that at least one of our four South East MEPs will be elected to Westminster next May as I'll pick up their MEP seat.

Other than that, I've just applied for a job heading up the Get Britain Out campaign, which as the name implies is an anti-EU campaign. So I'm sure lots more campaigning and blogging and that sort of thing. And personally, hopefully staying living in Sussex as my daughter really likes our local nursery. Although I wouldn't turn down a job offer in the States!

P.T.:  Do you have any special interests/hobbies?

D.E.:  I do a bit of horseback riding. This is going to sound very sad, but politics is my hobby as well as my career, so I read a lot of political books and magazines - when I get the time. Mostly I'm kept busy being a mother and taking part in campaigns.

P.T.: Hey, it's nice you love what you do!

D.E.: Yeah! I'm very lucky.

P.T.: Thanks so much for taking the time out to do it!

D.E.: You're very welcome. I hope it's useful