Concepts of a uniform system of (usually) regimental dress came around relatively recently, during the Civil Wars when colonels of regiments paid to uniform their men - the ubiquitous red coat became habitual after the formation of the New Model Army in 1645. Before that fighting men were distinguished by badge or livery - medieval footsoldiers wore a coat bearing their Lord's emblem or blazon.

The obsession with witches persisted until well into the twentieth century - in 1944 a medium, Helen Duncan, was gaoled for offences under the 1735 Witchcraft Act after an allegation of treason foundered. In fact she had revealed in the course of a seance that HMS Barham had gone down with 861 souls on November 25th 1941. This was not public news as the Admiralty had chosen to try and conceal the fact of her loss and the casualties.

Even in the febrile climate of 1941, with Britain under enormous pressure, this seems rather far-fetched, an apology is now being canvassed.

I'm with them on all three; as a right-leaning libertarian, I deprecate the continued efforts by our increasingly centralist and authoritarian government to further undermine the rule of law and further curb the liberties of its citizens.

The burden of my argument is simply this. Until now the British police and essentially citizens in unform whose powers are not greatly extended beyond those available to civilians. They have been seen, rightly and to their great credit, as servants of the community. With ID cards that changes; we would not have the right to ask each other to produce but the police would, thus the relationship with the rest of us citizens shifts - the police become agents of the state and that is altogether sinister.

And you've got the Barnett Formula which must count as a win in anybody's book. Happy to cross broadswords at any time. Tell me did we English wave out hankies at the Battle of the Standard (1138); Halidon Hill (1333), Neville's Cross (1346), Homildon (1402), Flodden (1513), Solway Moss (1542) or Pinkie (1547)?

Now I'd ask to direct your attention to the pernicious practice of dumbing-down in museums. A friend pointed out to me that, in Bolton Museum, curators are now described as 'Collection Rationalisation Officers' - PC, as might be expected, rules.

There is a view amongst liberals that museum visitors, like other non-apparachiks, are to be patronised and not-over-taxed (in a word, contempt). This is intended or stated as being intended to promote diversity, a much abused word, which our masters have transformed from lightness to a leaden curse.

A recent pole suggests a putative majority of the citizens might prefer to revert to their Scottish origins. It may be the cynical amongst will detect a greater note of self-interest; obviously care for the elderly, university tuition etc are infinitely more attractive in the Scottish model.

Yet, I would urge caution - should Alba regain independence from Albion then, presumably, the great boon of the Barnett Formula will vanish - as an Englishman, I would pray that it does, before the two nations go to war over ownership of North Sea OIl. An independent Scotland, sundered from the great Earth Mother of the English taxpayer, would not be able to afford such largesse.

It never ceases to surprise me as a re-enactor (anorak) how startlingly indifferent people remain when confronted by Germans, Free French and a fair sized gun mounted AFV. We attended a large out-of-town garden centre/retail emporium to confront and offer leaflets to the living dead entering and emerging.

Is it me; or is there something dreadfully depressing about these places, do they not represent a microcosm of our doomed, apostate society sinking into a credit crunch fuelled oblivion? Why do we spend time and money we don't have at inflated rates of usury in such depressing temples of tosh?

Intolerance is not a phenomenon to which we have been constantly immune. Jacqui Smith, should her proposal for an extended period of detention succeed, will have effectively undermined the rule of law which has taken us a thousand years to acquire by atacking one of its constant pillars, no arrest without trial.

This, coupled with the introduction of ID cards should the measure ever prove feasible, will go a long way toward creating the kind of police state we tend to excoriate in other countries. History provides some illuminating lesons, alarmingly close to home.

The complexities and deceits involved in border politics during the Elizabethan age were Byzantine in their entanglements and none more entangled that Sir John Forster, the English Middle March Warden.

By the third quarter of the sixteenth century Sir John was also in his seventies; a doughty fighter who'd borne arms against the Scots all of his adult life and who had been active in suppressing the rebellion of the Northern Earls in 1569 - 1570, he was corrupt to a degree most current politicians would easily recognise.

This is condemned by the thought police as an extension of the logic of racism, the same sort of injustice that discriminates by gender and race. Typical PC tosh of course and as arid as any other of their mantras. What has this to do with local history, aside from giving me a welcome chance to mount another offensive against popular liberal culture. I suspect it has rather a lot to do with history, particularly with the evolution of the Border Reivers, the Steel Bonnets of legend.

My subject was the Battle of Bannockburn 1314, that's the one battle in the 'The Three Hundred Years War' between us Northumbrians and the Scots that the Jocks can clain, pretty fairly, to have won. Obviously if Alex Salmond and the other Bravehearts achieve their desire then prseumably it will all kick off again, time to get the trusty broadsword out from the thatch.

The 1990's witnessed what we now term 'ethnic cleansing' - the ECHR defnes this, for judicial purposes, as something akin to but not necessarily the same as genocide. There are a series of defined actions which together constitute ethnic cleansing, a bit like a beginner's handbook:

The area to be 'cleansed' must be isolated and cleared of friendlies; the key figures in the victim group must be culled, social and political leaders are killed whilst those capable of bearing arms are segregated and then done away with, whilst non-combatants are expelled from the area - simple really.

The de Featherstone-Haughs appear in the thirteenth century, their hall-house stood on the present site; pretty woodland where the Hartley Burn flows into the North Tyne. As the Scottish wars drew long and savage a strong tower was added around 1330.

Featherstone sufficiently impressed Cadwallader Bates for him to enthuse it was the finest in the county and the family themselves were active in tumultous border affairs and affrays. In October 1530 Albany Featherstonehaugh, then County Sheriff, was murdered by the Ridleys. A later scion, Timothy, served his king with distinction, being knighted for his good service before he finally fell in the rout at Worcester.

At that point Britain, defeated, isolated, un-prepared and singularly unready, stood alone. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact appeared to have assured a convenient Nazi/Communist entente and a German attack on Russia seemed the remotest of possiblities. The USA, with its own strong pro-Nazi lobby, stood aloof.

I was, earlier in the day, a crystal clear winter's morning, in full fifteenth century fig, doing a photo shoot for English Heritage near Wooler; the air was needle sharp and North Northumberland provided that particular intimacy which comes with a still, clear mid-winter's day.

The bats had been a problem apparently, and everyone has to be nice to bats; I'd offered to bring a shotgun along and save all the fuss but you can't do that anymore, bats have rights, lucky devils.

Well, I can identify with that and the only thing wrong with the book was that I didn't think of the idea first and, being a Tory, it takes a lot to persuade me to read anything from someone who writes for the 'Guardian'.