The following, is a post I wrote on a blog that I have since deleted, dated 24/12/2007:

Several weeks back David Cameron was in Scotland, and gave a short speech in which he argued for the continuation of the 300 year old Union of England & Scotland and against Scottish Independence. (For a similar speech he made it in 2006 see here.)

I quote a couple of sentences from the speech which, even within their context, I find rather troublesome.

In the last sentence of his introduction, he says:

• "We must confront and defeat the ugly stain of separatism seeping through the Union flag."

and towards the end of the speech, we get:

• "So let us scrub out the stain of separatism that is starting to disfigure our land"

He also talks about a "narrow English nationalism" and a "coarse and casual nationalism" when referring to English nationalism.

I think it is very wrong to use this kind of language. There is nothing wrong with debating these subjects. It is more than legitimate to discuss Scottish Independence, as it is more than legitimate to discuss issues of English nationalism. Cameron should not be making comments that make people feel ashamed about discussing issues about which there is nothing to be ashamed about. It also, I am saddened to say, exposes Cameron's underlying position towards this debate. Rather than cool-headed and objective, as he would have us believe, it is an emotional and subjective petty nationalism. Else there is no place describing an opposing position as 'an ugly stain' that needs to be 'confronted and defeated'.

In a subsequent follow-up post, dated 31/12/2007, I wrote the following:

I refer back to my last post. I see it like this:

• A case can be made for keeping the constituent parts of the UK intact as part of The Union of The United Kingdom and Northern Island.

• A case can be made for Scottish Independence.

• A case can be made for Welsh Independence.

• A case can be made for a more overt English Nationalism and English Independence.

• A case can be made for the union of both parts of the island Ireland.

• A case can be made for regionalism within England.

This list can go on.

The point is that I read and hear many a good argument that make a good case for these positions and more. It is right to debate these issues - and politicians should not scare us into shutting-up.

On 18/12/2007, I posted the following:

Like everything else, constitutions do not stand still. They evolve; at times a little slower and at times a little faster.

There is no reason why the unwritten British Constitution should be exempt from this rule and indeed as one would expect, it is constantly changing. One only needs to take a quick glance at it's history since Gladstone and the Home Rule debates to see this.

The cauldron of British Constitutional matters continues to sit - as it has done for a thousand years, sometimes simmering and sometimes boiling but never frozen solid - firmly in place on her burner. Today we have of course the constant question of Britain's relationship vis-a-vis the European Union, but also debates surrounding The English Question, The West Lothian Question, regional devolution, Scottish Independence, Cornish devolution, upgrading the Welsh Assembly to a parliament - and the list goes on.

These subjects and more, are debated on the blogsphere; which I think is exactly what should be happening.