The Assisted Dying Bill... Assisted By Non-Accountable MPs from Scotland - And England Constantly under Attack...

The Assisted Dying Bill has been passed by the UK Parliament. Sorry, the so-called UK Parliament. Were MPs representing Scots and Northern Irish constituencies involved in that vote? Because, if so, non-accountable MPs, MPs unelected by the English and Welsh, have sway over life and death in those countries.

The "UK" Government's relentless brown-nosing of the Scots and, to a lesser degree, the Welsh, is sickening. Based on historical victimhood nonsense, the racist Celtic myth of 1707, and an awful lot of gobbing-off amongst the eight million residents of these countries, the rest of us suffer the West Lothian Question (the Assisted Dying Bill is an example and the 2003 Foundations Hospital in England Bill was decisive), the Barnett Formula (loathed by Lord Joel Barnett, who created it) and asymmetric national devolution in general.

The Northern Ireland situation is more complicated and I don't hear a relentless tide of racist, exclusive chanting from there.

Worth remembering that the partitioning of Ireland took place under a Welsh PM, with much interest and support for this coming from Scots Protestant MPs.

With Scotland and Wales, we are clasping a couple of asps to our bosoms. I have read and heard repeatedly the nationalist, English-phobic nonsense spouted by certain Scots and Welsh folk - even from new arrivals in England, who read and believe and think the country they have arrived in is evil.

This creates tensions in England. A Muslim taxi driver recently told me all about how the English had been nothing but rotten to the innocent Scots and Welsh over the centuries, how they had stolen England from the Welsh, and that the British Empire was all the work of the English. I gave him my views, and when I left the taxi he said he was going home to acquaint himself with the Scots' actions at the time of the Empire, the truth about William Wallace, the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question, DNA studies, 'Anglo Saxons' and the racist Celtic myth - originating with a comment about languages in 1707.

As for Wales, it was a principality of the Kingdom of England for centuries - a principality with a tiny population. If the English had hated the Welsh so much, they would have been able to exorcise the notion of Wales being, in anyway, something in its own right.

Of course, England itself throws up some interesting 'right on' denigrators - one man on YouTube positively rants about the English language, how it was largely derived from elsewhere, how he backs the racist 'Celtic' myth, and so on. Like other languages are free of influences from historic invaders or immigrants? He seems to be promoting some kind of purity myth about other languages as opposed to English, which itself seems racist. Aren't all nations mongrel? His comments threads are loaded with anti-English hate.

What this man does is actually promote hatred and the continued mistreatment of the so-called UK's largest and most ethnically diverse country.

The 'UK' Government, itself as English-phobic as can be, does nothing but continue to appease a tiny minority of Scots and Welsh people, including giving Scotland back a UK Secretary of State when it now has a national parliament!

England deserves a dedicated, national parliament and a modern, inclusive sense of English identity which learns the lessons of the past and celebrates the successes. It needs a dedicated national parliament, not submerging as 'Britain', the rump of the UK.

It is the largest and most ethnically diverse country of all, even proportionally.

Allowing racist Scots and Welsh tails to continue wagging the dog and create elitism, while stirring up racial tensions in England, is simply not on.

'UK' Parliament Appeases Welsh Nationalists While Cutting Pensioners' Winter Heating Allowance In England...

The UK Government, which is cutting heating allowances for pensioners in England, is specially employing people who speak Welsh for telephone and other enquiries in departments like Work & Pensions (DWP). 

Um, how many people in Wales speak Welsh fluently, if at all? How many people in Wales speak Welsh only and not English? 

Recruiting people specially to speak Welsh is a huge waste of money, while other things go hang. There are around three million people in Wales and they speak English. Quite a number of them are not even Welsh. 

This is not to say that people shouldn't learn Welsh, appreciate Welsh, study Welsh, etc, etc, but employing people to speak it specifically in 'UK' Government departments is absurd.

The grip of asymmetric national devolution - the Barnett Formula (which was loathed as unfair by its own creator, Lord Joel Barnett) sees higher spending in Wales per head of population than in England already. 

Before people talk of different spending levels within England, the Barnett Formula applies only nationally to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

The 'UK' Government is mad. And its support of the Welsh nationalist thing, the fake white Celtic myth of 1707, historical victimhood revisionism, etc, is way over the top when you consider the far larger and far more ethnically diverse population of England today. 

Asymmetric national devolution discriminates against every living soul in England, regardless of the origins of the person. 

Spending money to appease Welsh nationalists is simply not on. The Welsh are not an ethnic minority struggling with the English language. There are plenty of people who have genuine difficulties in understanding English to whom any such initiatives would be better directed. 

Or how about spending the Welsh language cash on pensioners' winter fuel payments?

Lord Donald Cameron of Lochiel - Another England-Hating, Scotland-Glorifying 'UK' Government Parasite - Snout in the Trough, Hands in Our Pockets...

Goodness! Scotland now has a First Minister, its own parliament, an unfair say on legislation passed for the much larger and ethnically diverse country of England (the West Lothian Question) and the Barnett Formula - reviled by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett!

Note how the Scottish Secretary of State (why do we need one now? We don't. We have a Scottish First Minister and parliament to confer with. How much is he paid?) avoids any mention of England in his House of Lords speech, and is basically an anti-England, UK Parliament gravy-train rider, paid for by England, and continuing the long tradition of a racist, resentful elite in the UK: Scotland - a tiny country of five million, free prescriptions for millionaires, keeping all its tax payer money, and getting loans from the so-called UK Government whenever it wants.

The five million people in Scotland compare to how many in England? And they have ALL this privilege. Surely not a healthy way to run a united kingdom, is it?

Donald Cameron resorts to the disgraceful obfuscation technique of referring to the 'UK' as a country twice in his spiel. The UK is a NATION, a so-called union of countries. If that was not so, Scotland would hardly have screeched for it own parliament - and Donald Cameron would not have jumped on the gravy train there. The UK is a democratically corrupt nation. It is not fit for purpose.

And Cameron's waffle about the Hebrides and the 'busy streets of London'? Both could be dealt with by the UK Parliament and local politicians representing those areas within it. Scotland already scoops far more from the pot than England proportionally via the Barnett Formula AND its own politicians and government buildings, on top of its snout-in-trough attendees at the 'UK' Parliament.

Donald Cameron slyly omits to mention that his own country, Scotland, has full recognition as a country, and that flag waving jingoism, historical revisionism, and a strong sense of exclusivity are all the rage there.

The 'UK' Parliament will do anything to preserve the travesty of the so-called UK - and is, itself, riddled with hatred for England. Yes, the most ethnically diverse UK country of all. The people of England have had no say in the type of government they want and have not been asked if they agree with asymmetric national devolution.

We have simply had a ruling UK elite trying to regionalise us out of existence.

We are ruled by devious hogs.

Remember, all this benefits a tiny number of UK residents - the five million in Scotland, a country which (falsely) lists itself as a Celtic Nation (based on the racist white Celtic myth, originating in 1707) and even its millionaires don't pay for  prescriptions and its people receive more spending per head of population than the people of England. 

Wake up. Racism is alive and well in the so-called UK. And a lot of it is courtesy of our governing bodies - and absolutely part of the exclusive, jingoistic nature of the smaller countries of Scotland and, to a much lesser degree, Wales.

Read all about it at the disgraceful 'UK Government' website:

HERE

And

HERE

Ncuti Gatwa - Doctor Who - Scottish Not British - and Russell T Davies's Past Form...

So, Doctor Who, now led again by racist Welshman Russell T Davies (witness some of his insular Welsh anti-Englishness via the article here) is "Rwandan-Scottish", not Rwandan-British? Does not compute. 

The first black guy to play the Doctor and he comes from a country of five million, who enjoy the elitist Barnett Formula (reviled by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett), exercising the West Lothian Question, the fake, racist Celtic victimhood nonsense, and all the benefits of asymmetric national devolution. And Ncuti is the FOURTH actor from that country of five million souls (in a nation of over sixty million) to play the Doctor, and this is supposed to be celebrated?

Nope. If his family had come to England, he'd probably say he was British. He'd have it rammed down his throat, as we all do in England. As he's not and doesn't view himself as such, this is obviously not about inclusivity, it's about exclusivity, Russell T Davies's evil agenda against the largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) 'UK' country, England, would do the Toymaker he nicked from original Who in 'The Giggle' proud.

I think the show is now made in Wales - a country of three million souls - yet the vast majority of BBC licence fee payers don't live there, do they?

Did anybody else notice that Davies's Isaac Newton, a white Englishman, was race-swapped? But the Scots inventor John Logie-Baird, was left white? But surely the Scots were disproportionately involved in the British Empire? Why not do a little tweaking there, RTD? Don't they deserve a sanctimonious rewriting too? Nope. Scotland is part of RTD's fake fraternity of Celtic Nations and so, historically, MUST remain white.

When a Woke person claims they are all for inclusivity, do check if they're Scottish or Welsh. The vast majority of the time they'll probably be fine. But, while Tommy Robinson, etc, make the news, the racism of the smaller countries is far more rampant, infects our whole system of government, yet often slips under the radar.

Investigate. You might just discover that all is not what it seems.

The Irish Times On The Fake Celtic Culture Which Produces So Much Discrimination In The Modern UK

                                              

The man who launched the UK's poisonous Celtic myth in 1707 - Edward Lhuyd.

Yesterday, we were asked by an American plastic Celt why we negated the 'Celtic culture' of the UK? It was the same as negating the handed-down history of any tribe, she said. Actually not. The passing of time will blur things - and what has been handed down for generations will usually be slightly inaccurate at least - but still have a ring of truth. 

However, the UK 'Celts' were not a tribe. They didn't exist until 1707 and since then this horrible fake 'thing' has become an industry and a way of practising racism. Which is how England, the largest and most multi-ethnic country of the UK, suffers the Barnett Formula (reviled by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett), the West Lothian Question and asymmetric national devolution.

By the way, the American plastic Celt began her conversation quite reasonably, she was, apparently, terribly excited about an American university study, but then ended up squawking that Scotland was a unified nation long before England, that the English did not exist until Medieval times, and so on.

These people often pose as academics, but if you demur a few times, their anti-English, racist nonsense comes billowing forth.

Somebody else in that thread, another apparent academic, ended up calling us a 'bitch'.

Fortunately, we're thick skinned.

We've found this brilliant article by Fintan O'Toole of the Irish Times. It's a few years old, and we hope he won't mind us reproducing it here - it covers the 'Celtic' industry fabulously. Our thanks to him:

Culture Shock 

Fintan O'Toole:

The first of a weekly column looks at a great Irish cultural secret: we aren't really Celtic and there never was a Celtic invasion 

There is a great secret in Irish culture. Like most Irish secrets, it is known to a lot of people. Most of them are archaeologists, and few of them like to utter it outside of their own circles. The reluctance is understandable - the secret undermines a thriving industrial conglomerate with branches in the arts, intellectual life, religion, sport, tourism, politics, popular entertainment and consumer marketing. The conglomerate's brand name is Celtic. From the Celtic Twilight to the Celtic Tiger, from Celtic spirituality to Celtic jewellery, from Glasgow Celtic to the Boston Celtics, from Celtic Woman to the Celtic Tenors, from Celtic Sheepskin (ugg boots a speciality) to Celtic castles (all built by the Normans), from Celtic Crest spring water to Celtic crosses, it covers a vast variety of images and products. It is so powerful that when Enda Kenny recently referred to Ireland as a "Celtic and Christian" society, the second part of the phrase raised far more hackles than the first. 

The secret of Celtic Ireland is that it is all bogus. There never was a Celtic invasion of Ireland or Britain. The Celtic identity of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany dates back, not to the mists of time, but to 1707. The Welsh scholar Edward Lhuyd, keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, published a book called The Antiquities of Nations, More particularly of the Celtae or Gauls, Taken to be Originally the same People as Our Ancient Britains (sic). Lhuyd, brilliantly, argued that Gaelic, Cornish, Breton and Welsh were related to the language spoken by the ancient Gauls. He called these languages "Celtic" (largely because the term Gallic then denoted the hated French) and suggested that they had spread to Britain and Ireland through migration. 

 In an intellectual culture saturated with classical learning, the link with the "Keltoi" who had invaded ancient Greece, and with the Gauls whom Caesar slaughtered and described, was flattering, not least in Ireland. Instead of being marginal people, we were the remnants of an ancient and once all-powerful European civilisation. With the rise of 19th-century cultural nationalism, this ready-made genealogy, with its neat racial distinction between Celts and Saxons, was far too useful to be refused. In an era obsessed with so-called scientific racism, it provided a seemingly natural case for Irish independence. The Celtic Twilight (or as that rare sceptic James Joyce called it, the Cultic Twalette) added a rich layer of modern cultural prestige. The bandwagon was rolling and new forces - New Age mysticism, the American search for roots, pan-European sentiment - keep giving it a push. 

Even the archaeologists who know the truth have a certain interest in not stating it too bluntly: putting the word Celtic in your title gets you a lot more sales beyond academe, even when what you're actually saying is that the Celts never got here.

But they all know about the great absence. There is an Iron Age material culture that is evident in findings from northern Europe between Paris and Prague. It is named after a site in Switzerland called La Tène and is associated with what we call the Celts (there is no evidence that these people ever used the term or even identified themselves as a single ethnic group). 

And none of the things you would find if these people invaded or migrated to Ireland - their pots, their houses, their burial-sites, their coins, their horse-fittings - exist here. There are high-end La Tène-style objects, but virtually all of them are of recognisably local manufacture. As Barry Raftery, one of the leading authorities on Iron Age Ireland, puts it of the presumed Celtic invasion, "It seems strange that a warrior aristocracy supposedly responsible for imposing so many aspects of its culture on the indigenous population . . . should have had almost no impact on the archaeological record." 

In fact, what both archaeology and genetic studies show is continuity - broadly the same people who built Newgrange continuing to inhabit the island, speaking a version of the language of the Atlantic seaboard from which they had originated. What did happen in the Iron Age is that an emergent aristocracy began to adopt the international style they knew from trade and other contacts. Local craft-workers produced their own versions of Celtic chic - a bit like us copying Gucci or Prada. It was a way for the knobs to distinguish themselves from the yobs. As the archaeologist Simon Jones puts it, "'Celtic art' . . . is not a marker of ethnic identity but of status, wealth, and power". If we are Celts today because our elites developed a taste for continental bling, then half the denizens of Foxrock and Montenotte are Italians. 

The survival, and indeed thriving, of bogus Celticism owes something to the relative timidity of the archaeological establishment and a lot more to the sheer utility of the term. Baggy, mystical, touched with the glamour of oppression, a useful way of alluding to white ethnicity without sounding overtly racist, it sprinkles a dust of profundity on much that is mediocre and meaningless. It is greatly to the credit of Irish artists that, after the first flush of the Cultic Twalette, most of them kept well away from it. This has given "Celtic" one useful artistic connotation - as a synonym for "bad".

The Highly Inclusive 'Anglo Saxons' and 'Ancient Britons' of England & The Highly Exclusive 'Scots' of Scotland...

'One Scotland' - but you have to be a Scot - not British, or English, or Bulgarian or...

I remember at school in the 1970s being told by my history teacher that the Anglo Saxons invaded what is now England, chased out the Ancient Brits, and took it for themselves. All the Ancient Brits (a retrospective naming - they didn't call themselves that - they were not a unified nation) ran off to Scotland and Wales.

'But how were they driven out?' I frowned. 'There was no technology to practise warfare on that scale - or genocide. The Anglo Saxons' boats would have been pretty small. They were not arriving here in their thousands, wave upon wave, all at the same time.'

My history teacher sighed. 'Well, that's what the historians say...' he said. And that was it.

Of course, I wasn't satisfied. Were historians all asses? I wondered.

As it happened, some historians shared my logic, even back then...

Flip forward to the 21st Century, and DNA evidence proves that the Ancient Brits didn't decamp in any large numbers at all. They actually married Anglo Saxons, and remained by far the majority DNA provider (Anglo Saxons markers in traditional English bloodlines are 10 to 40% - depending on the part of England). The Anglo Saxons were a minority. The mix of Ancient Brits, Angles and Saxons produced part of the rich brew that was the early English - and is the basis for England, the country.

Now, if the Anglo Saxons ruled the Ancient Brits with rods of iron and imposed their culture on them, why were they marrying them within a century? The arrival of the Anglo Saxons marked a great sea change here, but they would not have eradicated all other forms of culture already existing.

This throws up many interesting questions about the origins of English culture, which historians will be slow to grasp (don't rattle their settled view/offend any 'Celtic' sensibilities) but will, no doubt become a subject of more and more interest.

But the 'Celtic' thing has only been in motion since the 1700s and DNA studies show it to be a fallacy - an invention. 

It's the fusion of the Ancient Brits and the Anglo Saxons which formed the original English. And since them, the inclusive nature of the nation has seen many other people of different origins joining the 'family'.

The 'Celtic' cross is NOT a 'Celtic' Cross. It is an ancient British cross which has been appropriated by various racist/nationalist groups in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland. These countries/regions were never even remotely related to any 'Celtic' concept before the 1700s. These racist/nationalist groups have been trying to appropriate a lot of the traditional folklore and ancient artefacts of this island to feed their 'White Celtic' myth. None of it is true. It is not healthy. And it is not ON.

Scots Nats and Celtic myth followers are constantly showing their insecurity, insularity and racism by trying to rewrite history.

But it doesn't work.

They really just show themselves up.

Wikipedia's pages on these 'Celtic nations', and things relating to them, are becoming embarrassing to read. Works of complete fiction.

For instance, an 'article' on 'Scottish' inventions, note not British, includes the caveat that it covers all inventions invented in Scotland, whatever the origins of the inventor, even if they're 'non-Scot'  (sorry, if I invent something in Scotland it is my invention, not the country's, and I will have the patent), and all inventions of those of any 'Scottish descent ' - regardless of whatever else they are descended from - elsewhere in the world. So, they have it both ways. Be Russian and invent in Scotland and it's a 'Scottish invention', and have a Scottish great-grandfather and invent in Russia and it's a 'Scottish invention'. Now, let's say you are of English/Welsh descent but born in Scotland. That's a 'Scottish invention'. That is not inclusive. It is appropriating for fake glory.

It's all highly creepy and yet, at the same time, hilarious.

The 'Celtic' Cross has recently appeared in Stormfront literature.

Well, it's Ancient British, it belongs to anybody here to study and research, and its history does not belong to a couple of tiny groups of elitists - Scots and Welsh nationalists/White Celtic myth adherents - who have a severe chip on their shoulders - and a horribly inaccurate and exclusive view of our history.

'Scots' - Not A Language And Not 'National' Either...

According to the Scottish Government, 'Scots' - a dialect spoken in parts of Lowland Scotland - is now a language. And all the nationalistic Little Scotlanders have 'corrected' Wikipedia. They can't bear England and Wales to have something they don't. It's like spoilt children. When you took a look at Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, above. you can see the angry, bumptious, intimidating attitude which prevails all too clearly.

Small attitude. Small country. Not a good advertisement for Scotland - and not one endorsed by many Scots.

Of course, Scots Nats and some plastic Scots born abroad - desperate for lovely, rosy coloured myths of their 'homeland' (Braveheart - ahem!) - love it. The 'Woke' also flock to it. Dear little oppressed Scotland! Higher funding, far better democratic representation, a vote on whether to stay in the UK, then the right to continue swaggering and belly-aching when the vote is 'Yes'... But oppressed.

Gaelic was the language of Scotland - and is a fascinating language indeed. "Scots" is an English dialect really - like Yorkshire. Or could we jiggle it?

For a start, if 'Scots' is a language, it cannot be called 'Scots' - because it's not spread across the whole of Scotland. English is, of course, spread across the whole of England. This pricks the 'Scots' nationalistic, jingoistic bubble a little, but 'Scots' could be called 'Southern Lowlands language' perhaps - with the Highlands having a 'Northern Highlands language'?

The links of 'Scots' to England and historic Northumberland in particular? Forget it! 'Wee' is middle English and is a colloquialism for the act of urinating in some parts of England, but the Scots must have their way - logic out the window!

Of course, the UK has many dialects. But if you're going to claim 'Scots' is a language ('Aye' is an English word, by the way. Ever been to the North of England? It's even used down south!) then it cannot be a national language, because it's not used nationally. A lot of it is English, or derived from English, and it cannot be called 'Scots' because most Scots don't use it. 

It's not national.

Hope that's clear...

Scotland shows its insecurity and pettiness with this kind of illogical nonsense, nothing else.

Brick by brick, Scotland is becoming a madhouse - bursting with 'woke' mentality (England and Wales are the same on that score), fake victimhood (Wales has a dose of that too), jingoism (they were, of course, disproportionately active in colonising during the British Empire), historic revisionism, anti-English rhetoric, jealousy, and exclusivity - while pretending to love the world. But not their nearest neighbours - a far more multi-ethnic country than theirs.

And the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question and asymmetric national devolution...

A country of five million - an ever more jingoistic and deranged elite amongst its numbers - in a UK nation of how many?

Alex Thomson Of The UK Column And The Racist White Celtic Myth, Root Of Much Discrimination Against England In The So-Called UK...

                     

British? No, no - they're Scots and Welsh only. And they're 'Celts' (so sayeth Alex Thomson of UK Column) - and such victims of the horrendous English. All fine tales built on ancient white race myths and Mel Gibson's 'CRY FREEDOM!' These fine Scottish and Welsh people had nothing to do with the British Empire! (I jest)

Isn't it strange how the Celtic myth is so plainly a myth, and yet it infiltrates so much of UK life? Take the UK Column - an often interesting and rather alternative (no problem there) news site. Sadly, there is heavy 'Celtic' nonsense in the organisation, brought to bear by staff like Alex Thomson. 

The whole venture is rather strangely organised anyway, with a complete non-questioning of the dreadful discrimination against every living soul in the largest and most multi-ethnic 'UK' country of all - via asymmetric national devolution, the Barnett Formula, the resurgent West Lothian Question, etc - and a very heavy focus on those five million souls living in Scotland.

DNA studies have more than proved that the notion of Anglo Saxons replacing the entire population of what is now England, and a grand, unified 'Celtic' civilisation occupying the entire island before that, are bunk.

In fact, bunk originating with a Welshman in 1707, who was only talking about language similarities of Gaelic and Welsh to the supposed 'Celtic' languages.

Of course, people can still call themselves British, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or whatever - these are far more logical creations, but what drives the Celtic myth is largely jingoism - a sense of false pride, a vilification of the largest country within the UK, an appropriating of ancient British history, a victimhood narrative, a strong sense of exclusivity, and an insistence on special treatment.

Take the vilification, for example. Alex Thomson refers (negatively) to 'Anglo American banks'. Um, the 'Anglo' thing is piffle for a start - does he mean English or British? The most appropriate word would be British as the Scots were and are into all that - as they were with the British Empire - to a disproportionate level.

The DNA studies also call into doubt the notion that the 'olde English' derived all - or even most - of their language and culture from the minute number of invaders. It opens up fascinating questions.

But the powerful Celtic myth adherents will do all they can to crush them.

As far as the likes of Alex Thomson are concerned, his ancestors were wonderful, faintly mystical, white beings, who sounded like Clannad when they sang, tossed the caber, formed male voice choirs, and made pasties. They and their 'culture' (?) survive despite centuries of victimhood. So, DNA studies disagree? Who gives a stuff? The level of cognitive dissonance in the so-called 'UK' ensures that, up to now, there's never been much of a challenge.

And all this has made a powerful contribution to a tiny elite in the UK enjoying more funding (the Barnett Formula), far better democratic representation (asymmetric national devolution) and chances to interfere in the democracy of a far larger and far more ethnically diverse country (England). Ever heard of the (about to resurge) West Lothian Question? Ever checked out the 2003 Foundation Hospitals vote for England?

Interesting article from Prospects magazine, from 2006 - illustrating just how little we actually know about the history of these islands - and just how much DNA studies can tell us. A quick look at Wikipedia will show you just how fiercely this is resisted. I include the beginning of the article here, and a link to the full original at the bottom of this post:

Myths of British Ancestry:

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

Alex Thomson of UK Column - proud purveyor of the totally spurious Celtic myth - which has contributed to much division and unequal treatment in the so-called 'UK' - all levelled against what is unashamedly its most multi-ethnic country, England.

Hey - We Don't Want A Parliament Which Represents England! - Michael Gove

What Michael Gove seems to be saying: 'Democratic rule for the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country? No, no, no. We want our "UK" Government gravy train to continue forever. Stuff England.'

 From the Daily Express:

Scottish MPs to get power to vote down key English laws - Gove's desperate bid to save UK

They added: “We want to create a Parliament which is representative of the whole of the UK, not just England.' 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1450434/english-votes-for-english-laws-scottish-mps-veto-scotland-michael-gove-england-uk#conversation-wrapper

So, where IS the parliament that represents England? After all, Scotland has its own. Why do the vast majority of UK voters have to be submerged into something that is clearly undemocratic? That's how we got foundation hospitals in 2003.

EVEL was never enough, of course, but now Michael Gove (without consultation with the electorate in England) is set to get rid of even that so non-representative MPS from elsewhere in the UK can vote on England-only issues.

Of course, the SNP, mired in racist, exclusive White Celtic Myths (dating from the 1700s) and Scots bigotry, applauds this.

So, the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country once again loses the small amount of representative democratic rule it has.

But surely, if the SNP is NOT racist, it should be shouting for democratic representation for this far more ethnically diverse country? In fact, it should be SCREAMING. MPs whose constituents have their own parliament should not be voting (unaccountably) on issues only affecting the country next door.

Particularly when they have the Barnett Formula, deemed highly unfair to England (and to Wales to a lesser degree) by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett.

England IS NOT the UK.

It needs its own parliament.

And if that is at the cost of a 'union' that is NOT a union, so be it.

Anything else is highly racist.

Kristiina Cooper of the BBC: A Very Anti-English View Of Parliamentary History...

                
Kristiina Cooper of the BBC: She lists herself on LinkedIn as a 'Senior Broadcast Journalist'. The BBC sets its bar exceedingly low. She works on Radio 4's 'Today In Parliament'. 

Dear me! It's taken us a few years to spot this smelly little piece of the BBC's anti-English agenda - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29252332  but it's so dreadful and so typical - the sort of thing written by a 16-year-old SJW apprentice on a vape break or similar, that we had to feature it.

Here's Kristiina (https://twitter.com/KristiinaCooper), who plainly doesn't like the English. Nothing positive here. And yet she's writing about the country which is the main reason for her employer's existence and its main funder:

Parliament started life as an English affair. It was not much of a Parliament - more of a talking shop for the king and rich men. The king asked their advice, but did what he wanted. These meetings morphed into a formal arrangement which eventually became the House of Lords. In those days - and for several centuries later - England was busy fighting with Scotland and raiding Wales. 

Crumbs! Poor Scotland! Totally innocent! Poor Wales - totally innocent! 

By the 13th Century, a parliament was when kings met up with English barons to raise cash for fighting wars - mostly against Scotland. Thanks to Magna Carta of 1215, kings were now obliged to ask before taking anyone's money. That did not stop the rows though. Some barons got fed up with Henry III - not least because of his failed, expensive battles in Wales [Henry was partly of Welsh origin, by the way, Kristiina. Did you know? WENAP). The ambitious Simon de Montfort sidelined Henry and made himself ruler. De Montfort was a big fan of Parliament. The one in 1265 was the first to involve "ordinary" folk - knights, not just the super-rich. And it was the first time elections were held - the first stirrings of the House of Commons we know today. The venue was usually Westminster, where one enterprising monarch had built a massive hall on a swamp, which grew into the Palace of Westminster. Westminster Hall is still in use today. 

I'm afraid the picture is much more nuanced than this. But - once again - the ghastly English! 

 Scotland had its own parliament from the 13th century, which was occasionally held in open air. In those days, though, the king had the real power. So one of the early campaigns for independence was sparked by an English king declaring himself king of Scotland. William Wallace led the rebellion. In those days campaign weapons were bows and arrows. Wallace was eventually found guilty of treason. He was dragged through the streets of London naked before being hanged, drawn and quartered. 

Heavens! William Wallace - hero! Been watching Braveheart, Kristiina, dear? 

At the end of the 18th Century, there was a powerful campaign for Irish independence from England. The English response? To crush the rebellion brutally and bring Ireland firmly into the UK with another Act of Union. That was the end of the Irish Parliament. A hundred Irish MPs turned up at Westminster. By now, the Commons chamber was getting pretty crowded. 

Oh heavens! The ENGLISH response? But we no longer had an English Parliament, did we, Kristiina? Did they want independence from Britain? And what did Welsh Prime Minister Lloyd George do in the 1920s? 

 For the first 800 years or so Parliament was a club for men. Women finally got the vote in 1918 after the campaign by the Suffragettes. The first woman elected to the Commons, in 1918, was Countess Constance Markievicz but as a member of Sinn Fein she refused to take her seat. The first woman to take her seat was Viscountess Nancy Astor in 1919.

Um, Parliament was run by gentlemen. And things tended to be a great deal more bloody and turbulent for several centuries - not the place for 'ladies'. Very different times. But Parliament took representations from women very seriously - which is how we got the highly unfair 'Tender Years Doctrine'. Working class men had accountabilities - like giving their lives and total financial responsibility for their families - which helped motivate their fight for male suffrage. It was only achieved after World War One. Millicent Fawcett knew that parliament was happy for LADIES to have the vote (with none of the accountabilities foisted on men) very early on. But this didn't happen because it would have meant a permanent Tory Government. Feminist underpinnings, Kristiina, dear? How pale, female and stale you are! And the suffragettes? With their bombings (harming working class voteless men) and their odious and huge support for the White Feather Campaign? Oh, PURLEASE! Try this: https://antifeministpraxis.com/2017/03/31/feminism-was-never-not-rotten/

I recommend you read the entire BBC article - no mention of the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question, no mention of the fact that the UK Parliament discriminates against the largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) UK country (England) financially and democratically. No mention of the fake white Celtic myth, dating from the 1700s. No mention of the IRA killing innocent people. Shame on you, Kristiina. I'm sure you'll be welcome at the BBC for a very long time...

Gerald Kaufman - Equality for England Is Racist - Let The Scots And Welsh Be Privileged...

We don't really want English Votes For English Legislation - we want a fully-fledged English Parliament - either within or without the UK.

But, with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish enjoying far higher spending levels than us in England via the Barnett Formula, which the late Lord Joel Barnett, who created the formula, said he was "ashamed of", and the West Lothian Question breaking down our democracy and foisting things like Foundation Hospitals on us at the will of MPs representing Scots constituencies, whose own constituents do not suffer them, it seems like a small step in the right direction.

Of course, some racists in Westminster do not like England at all - Gerald Kaufman, backbench Labour MP and long-serving anti-English lobbyist, is one of them. He brands anything that gives England some parity as "racist" (having a Scottish Parliament and higher public spending there is not, of course), and witters on:

"Is it not a glory of this house that every MP from those holding the highest office through to the most newly elected MP is equal in the division lobbies. Is it not a fact that this government is undermining not simply whatever differences there may be between outlooks from people of different counties within the UK but this government is undermining the whole basis of British democracy," he added.

British democracy? The West Lothian model? No thanks.

Different counties? Different counties in Scotland too - but that country still has national recognition.

He apparently added something about the Magna Carta - but that was English, not British.

Do learn your history, Mr K!

Mr Kaufman, YOU are the racist, you seek to perpetuate a system which discriminates against every human being in England, the largest and most cosmopolitan of all UK nations.

Hang your head in shame. You fool nobody.

And as for Angela Eagle, in the running to become deputy Labour leader, groaning on about the "rushed and partisan way" EVEL is progressing, was it not the same when Scotland got its parliament? I don't recall any consultation with voters in my country (England) about it. But we live in the so-called "UK" and this was a massive constitutional change, brought about by your own party.

 Ms Eagle, your anti-England/English ways are out of date. Labour needs to adapt. There have been two classes of MPs in the House since devolution - those that can only vote on issues that affect their own constituents, and those that have the dubious "right" to override democracy and vote on others. That's how England got Foundation Hospitals and a monstrous hike in tuition fees.

BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat Programme Covers Up Truth About Tuition Fees...

It was my grave misfortune today to catch a snatch of the BBC Radio 1 "Newsbeat" programme. The subject was: 'DO You Trust Politicians?' - in particular with regard to university tuition fees - and the opinions were sought of various young audience members. There was one who thought we should follow Scotland's leadership and have none. There was the Scottish one who declared that it was terrible that in England the fees should be charged. There was the presenter who referred to the "UK" when he meant England and Wales only.

But nowhere was it mentioned that tuition fees in England were foisted on us by the votes of MPs representing Scottish constituencies whose own constituents would not be having them.

English MPs voted against them. This is the West Lothian Question in action. It was the same scenario with Foundation Hospitals.

But, far from being a vindictive usurper of the will of England's MPs, Scotland was presented on Newsbeat as being a fair-minded, sensible place - one whose lead we should follow.

What a sickening mangler of facts the BBC is.

And how stupid are young people in England to believe it.

The Celebrities Letter To Scotland: Smug, Out Of Date, And INACCURATE

We've never had much respect for the intelligence levels of many celebrities - from the awful self-styled celeb Toby Haydoke, currently cluttering up Dr Who DVD commentaries to Rod Stewart (of half English, half-Scots parentage, born in England but proclaiming himself a Scot), we've had our doubts for decades.

But the letter from 200-odd celebrities urging Scotland to vote NO in its referendum left us gasping. What an eloquent  plea for our "shared country"... hang about our WHAT? Scotland and England are two separate countries, Scotland even has its own parliament which sorts most of its own legislation, so what "SHARED COUNTRY"? Oh, purlease! Britain is a nation, a union of countries. And then there's the province of Northern Ireland, making up the UK.

But with the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula and various self-styled (and racist) Celts telling us (falsely) that they have more ties here than anybody else, the majority of everyday English folk would bid a cheerful farewell to Scotland.

If the media would present them with all the facts.

Just think, without the votes of MPs representing Scottish constituencies we would have no Top Up Fees and No Foundation Hospitals in England. Yes, those MPs overturned the vote of English MPs on those matters, although Scotland is not affected. And then the Scots whine on about how Foundation Hospitals, etc, are the nasty English way of doing things.

SICK!!!

Cilla Black? Simon Cowell? OOOH! We're impressed! Not.

Get real, you champagne guzzling idiots and come down from your ivory towers.

Life ain't easy for us poor.

And the Scots are far from blameless for that fact.

Bristol West MP, UK Communities Minister And "Proud Welshman" Stephen Williams - A Celtic Myth Supporter. Apartheid Is Here.

Stephen Williams - Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West has obviously done a HUGE amount of family history research. He confidently asserts that his people (the Welsh) and the Cornish are the oldest peoples on this island.

 From the UK Parliament website:

"Communities Minister Stephen Williams said:

This is a great day for the people of Cornwall who have long campaigned for the distinctiveness and identity of the Cornish people to be recognised officially.

The Cornish and Welsh are the oldest peoples on this island and as a proud Welshman I look forward to seeing Saint Piran’s flag flying with extra Celtic pride on March 5 next year."

 We're delighted here that the Cornish have been granted national minority status, although we are suspicious of the government's reasons for doing so. The people of Cornwall are entitled to go independent and think themselves to be whatever they like as regards their origins. They're not Celts. But if they want to believe they are, then great. I don't want my taxes going towards feeding that myth though. and I don't want the UK Parliament to reflect it as it's simply misguided with more than a faint whiff of racism attached to it I feel. But if the Cornish believe it, that's up to them. Of course, you can be Cornish and separate from the English without the Celtic myth if you so choose to be.

But Bristol West MP and UK Communities Minister, that "proud" supporter of the Celtic myth Stephen Williams, scares us. The man believes in the Celtic thing to such a degree that he thinks the Welsh and the Cornish are "the oldest peoples on this island". Of course, DNA evidence points to the fact that this is not biologically true, and up until recent times the Cornish, Scots and Welsh were not even referred to as Celts anyway. The term "Celtic" came into play around 1700 and largely referred to languages. But this was extended, particularly in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall to include other things - archeological remains and culture for instance, which, in fact were not Celtic at all. A sense of exclusiveness was born and a sense of "We've been here the longest". It is accepted that, at the time of the Romans, what is now the UK was populated by a number of separate tribes, certainly not Celts. Read this - it's interesting - http://networkedblogs.com/SpsJk

But Stephen Williams believes that he is a Celt. And that the Welsh and the Cornish are the oldest peoples on this island. Oldest? Oh no, Mr Williams, the Celts are one of the most recent (invented) peoples on this island. 

Perhaps his "Celtic heritage" is the reason that Mr Williams believes outrages like the West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula are perfectly permissable? After all, the English (the people of England) aren't pure breeds like he believes he is, are they? Thank goodness!

Meanwhile, England, which, in reality, has bloodlines going back just as far as the Scots, Welsh and Cornish (genocide was never practised by ancient invaders) and many that are far more recent, and is far more non-exclusive and cosmopolitan, is only worthy of inferior public spending and a democratic deficit that defies belief.

Oh, Mr Williams, the anti-English, "Celtic" supremacy agenda of the UK Government becomes ever more evident. Thanks to people like you. This is apartheid. And the reasons behind it hold up no better than those for apartheid in South Africa years ago.

These fake "Celtic" peoples, a UK elite, enjoying an invented pride and better public spending than the people of England? This is mind blowing.

And to the people of Bristol West: is it comforting to know that your MP is so deluded and exclusive?

Gordon Brown - Deluded Scottish Jingoist (And Anti-English, Of Course!)?

 Laughed like drains when we read Gordon Brown's pro-union speech as reported in the The Scotsman.

"I believe that as a result of implementing -across the UK- Scottish values that emphasis social justice and opportunity for all, we have narrowed the inequalities between the nations of the United Kingdom."

Social justice? The Barnett Formula? The West Lothian Question? The pure evil that is the UK treatment of the nation of England and all its people? Yes, we've noticed Scottish values being implemented in England - the values of "We're all right, Jack, stuff you lot in England - we hate you anyway!"

Gordon, you really do seem rather strange to us. And incredibly twisted, jingoistic and uncaring. But our opinion doesn't matter does it? As long as your little nation of five million souls continues to leach off and dominate a nation of around fifty five million souls, you simply don't give a damn, do you?

Why Do English Bloggers Insist On Celt And Celtic?

One of the biggest causes of artificial divisions between the English, Scots and Welsh is the use of the word "Celt" or "Celtic".

It has been proven that the English were and are not Anglo Saxons, and that the Scots and Welsh were and are not Celts.

It's a myth. There may be cultural influences, but we are not separate ancient tribes - and certainly not ancient WHITE tribes.

The so-called Celts have become another group oppressed and abused by the awful English in centuries past.

The term is often used in a racist sense by Welsh, Scots and Cornish writers to imply a sense of belonging to this island far more than the people of England.

So, why do so many English bloggers and web site owners seem so happy to perpetuate the myth?

Hundreds And Thousands Trifles With Life - And Clearly Doesn't Remember 1982...

This is great - it's from a very "clever" blog called "Hundreds And Thousands (On The Trifle Of Life)":

In fact, for those of us old enough to remember, we seem to have been here before.

Cuts in public services…

Civil unrest in Northern Ireland…

Rising unemployment…

Military action in parts of the world that no-one in the UK really gives a fuck about…

Why, it’s 1982 again!

Cuts in public services? Began before 1982 (or indeed the 1980s, dear).

Civil unrest in Northern Ireland?

Began before 1982 (or indeed the 1980s, dear).

Rising unemployment?

Began before 1982 (or indeed the 1980s, dear).

Isn't it interesting when somebody writes a blog post that doesn't make any sense?

Not that we'd ever do it here (er...).

But then we don't pretend to remember 1982.

Far too much Stella Artois...

And Chris was concussed by a swinging deelybopper...

BBC Tucks Away England To Conceal Truth About NHS Budget Cuts

We all know that the BBC is fully involved in covering up wherever possible the blatant discrimination by the UK Government against the people of England, and, in the wake of the Budget, here's another little gem:

The Department of Health says it is to make cuts of £4.35bn over three years in an "efficiency savings" drive.

It is the biggest contribution to £11bn of government savings announced in last year's pre-Budget report.

Ah, the Department of Health! So, we're still a United Kingdom, are we? All will share the pain?

But tucked away under other Budget cuts news, five paragraphs down:

The health service in England faces making the biggest cuts - £4.35bn, which it says can be achieved through procurement, savings in its national IT programme, energy efficiency, better use of property and reducing staff sick leave, something it says alone could save £555m.

Ah, so it's only the health service in ENGLAND is it, that is making cuts of £4.35bn?

Neatly tucked away by the twisted BBC.

And I bet David "Sour Little Englanders" Cameron and Nick "Hardly Anybody Voted For Me, But Look At Me Now - LOADS OF MONEY!" Clegg are well chuffed.

I really hate the BBC.

The British Bastard Corporation, bent on deceit.

Socialist Unity - Andy Newman Talks Trash About The '70s - And Turns The Comments Off!

We laughed like drains when we read this by Andy Newman at Socialist Unity:

The 1970s were a dangerous time, with a widespread culture of heavy drinking and violence, and the cross-dressing and androgony of glam rock bands was unsettling to a world with stultifying heterosexual conformity. This was before such statements would be considered as ironic, and were instead slightly regarded as uncomfortable and slightly threatening.

Andy Newman, do you REMEMBER the 1970s?!!

"Widespread heavy drinking and violence"? The "cross-dressing and androgony of glam rock bands was unsettling to a world with stultifying heterosexual conformity"?!!

Oh PURLEASE!

Bands like The Sweet made it absolutely plain that they were STRAIGHT, MATE at the time, these men did not dress up to make a statement about their sexuality! And they were embraced as heroes by the gobby council estate urchins where I lived, who thought it was a "right larf".

Also, we'd been quite comfortable with the likes of Danny La Rue cross-dressing well before the 1970s.

The '70s were a time of increasing violence, it's true, but there was an embedded culture of heavy drinking before that decade on the council estate where I lived, and I'm sure amongst other classes.

Boy George in the 1980s was really the first mainstream pop star to arouse feelings of discomfort amongst certain people. And that was because he wasn't heterosexual.

But THAT was in the 1980s! Musn't mention the 1980s, eh, Andy? No possibility of any move-on in attitudes in the Thatcher era in your revisionist little world?!!

If you're going to make revisionist comments about the 1970s, please do us one favour, matey - turn the comments ON!!

But we weren't so ignorant that a bit of glitter and lippy on male pop stars was going to freak us out.

BBC Cornwall's Graham Smith - Encouraging The Racist "Celtic" Myth

Regular readers here know that we favour recognition of Cornwall's demands to leave the UK (note - leave - not become another elitist "Celtic" nation hanger-on like Scotland and Wales - this is what some of the "Cornish" nationalists seem to be seeking), but we don't favour the Celtic myth.

This was something rather romantically applied to the Scots and Welsh in the 1700s. It's not accurate, but who cares? Well, we do because it smacks of racism (some of those charming neighbours of ours use it to assert the myth they were here first and therefore should have the right to boot the rest of us out), but however it is used it is false and racist.

The Celts were ancient WHITE tribes, and the term is frankly offensive when applied to modern day areas of the UK.

The PC crowd fawn all over it, of course, seeing an (invented) ethnicity claiming to have been treated badly by the horrid English. But that is not the truth.

Yes to us saying a fond farewell to Cornwall if its people so desire it, NO to fake and exclusive claims of "pure" ethnicity!

Worryingly, Graham Smith of BBC Radio Cornwall seems quite happy to flag up the Celtic myth.

Many thanks to my friends in the Kernow branch of the Celtic League for their press release announcing they have been granted "Roster Status" within the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) at the United Nations.

Many thanks to his friends?!

Surely he should be impartial?!

What is wrong with the BBC?!!

Mark Easton Of The BBC: More Anti-English Nonsense...

On Friday, a friend joked that he didn't realise I was a BNP supporter when he saw an England flag on my car. It was a joke but also a reminder of how our national emblem was appropriated by racists during the 1970s and '80s.

Says Mark Easton of the BBC.

Excuse me, Mark, but do you actually remember the 1970s and (ugh - for a BBC type to write) '80s?

I do.

And I never even saw a St George's Flag.

Racist groups used the Union Flag as their emblem.

The BNP still does - flanked by the flags of Scotland, England and Wales.

Proceeding into the comments, we find the usual nonsense - our post-imperialist guilt (surely it was the BRITISH Empire - why don't the Scots and Welsh feel guilty?), and the reasons why the English are so disliked - arrogant swines, aren't we?

Fortunately, there were plenty of other comments pointing out that the flag of choice of racist groups in the past was the Union Flag. And that we should be able to wave the English flag. Predictably, one commenter pointed out that newcomers to Scotland and Wales feel more inclined to call themselves "Scottish" or "Welsh", but in England the term is "British".

Of course. That's because new arrivals in England have "British" stuffed down their throats.

Scotland and Wales have their own national governing bodies and the words "Scottish" and "Welsh" are well to the fore.

I think it really is time the UK broke up.

What is happening to the people of England is criminal - the manipulation to keep us under the Union cosh.

And Mark Easton - believe me, if I had any option I would not be contributing to your salary.

But in our wonderful free country, as you work for the BBC, I HAVE to.

What Britishness Can And Does Do That Englishness Doesn't Is To Discriminate Against All Citizens Of England

"What Englishness can't do that Britishness can do is appeal unambiguously to people of different ethnic origins," notes Janan Ganesh, political correspondent for The Economist.

It's the BBC reporting again.

But Janeh Ganesh is talking cobblers.

Britishness is not and was never intended to be a blanket nationality simply aimed at everybody living in England.

It was intended to be the blanket nationality of everybody living in England, Scotland and Wales.

With the will to do so, the word "English" could be substituted for the word "British" and an inclusive, civic English nationality be developed.

New arrivals in England have "Britishness" rammed down their threats.

Whilst the PC crowd waste no opportunity to demonise Englishness as a non-inclusive, racist mind set.

But the English have long been a "mongrel" nation.

And all the better for it.

What Britishness does is place every man, woman and child in England at a serious disadvantage when compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and devolution have seen to that.

The same BBC article also flags up the BBC's bizarre obsession with the 1970s:

In reacting against the multi-cultural and fragmented way in which history has been taught since the 1970s, there is a danger that the pendulum could swing too far the other way.

Um, my wife and others I know will vouch for the fact that British history has been taught with an anti-English bias in English schools since well before the 1970s.

And at the same time, whilst I recall the anti-Englishness rampant in history teaching at the comphrehensive school I attended from 1976-1981, I do not recall a "multi-cultural and fragemented" method of teaching.

If that has happened, I'm sure it was more a product of the PC 1980s and 1990s.

But the BBC musn't mention the 1980s.

Unless it's negative, of course.

Jon Kelly - Racist BBC - The "Celtic Nations"

Here's Jon Kelly writing for the BBC:

As the World Cup kicks off, many football fans from the UK's celtic nations say they will support ABE - Anyone But England. Why does this inflame so much passion on both sides?

Um, so the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are Celts, are they? Descendants of ancient white tribes?

Given that they weren't even called that until the 1700s, and we live in a modern day, multi-ethnic UK, I find the "Celtic" thing hard to believe.

After all, if the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are all of common (white) stock, why was Shirley Bassey so proud to be Welsh? If they look after each other as some kind of "brotherhood", why was Ireland partitioned by Lloyd George, a Welsh Prime Minister? Why aren't the Scots screaming that their "Celtic" cousins in Wales deserve parity with Scotland - equal spending and a parliament?

When will the BBC stop perpetrating the myth that the English are racists, unfit to lick any body's boots, whilst boosting up the populist, racist "Celtic" myth of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

And why do the English HAVE to pay for this dreadful organisation, so intent on doing them down?

Gary Younge - Don't Mention The '80s! - "Wally Of The Week"!

Gary Younge wrote in the New Statesman:

When I was growing up in Stevenage in Hertfordshire during the 1970s, the question of who to support in the World Cup never posed much of a dilemma for my family. We backed Brazil. Nearby Hitchin may have been where I was born and, with the exception of a six-week family trip to Barbados to see relatives, England may have been the only country I knew. But when it came to my footballing allegiance, I got my kicks from a country I knew nothing about and with which I had absolutely no connection. At the time, this seemed entirely logical.

Ah, so he grew up - or did a lot of his growing-up in the 1970s, did he?

A quick check revealed he was born in 1969. So he turned ten in 1979.

How hilarious!

I am not the person I was in the 1970s

writes Gary.

No, dear, you're not a tiny little boy any more, are you?

Honestly, the lengths some people will go to to avoid mentioning the 1980s - which is also where Mr Younge did rather a lot of growing up as well, is it not?

What is it with the young PC crowd that mention of the '80s should be avoided at all costs, and claims made on the previous decade which, in reality, they can barely remember - and if they do probably found downright miserable?

Mr Younge and the rest of the enlightened PC crowd are obviously STILL in need of growing up!

In the dreaded 1980s, TV columnist Nina Myskow used to award a media personality the title "Wally Of The Week".

And just for this week we're reviving that title - Gary Younge, you are our Wally Of The Week!

Take a bow.

Power 2010 - Home Rule For England

Power 2010 projected the image of the Cross of St George and the slogan "Home Rule" onto the Houses of Parliament...

And were quickly ordered to remove it.

The act served two useful purposes:

1) To highlight the democratic deficit in England.

2) To highlight the fact that we are now living in a police state.

Oh, for the good old days of freedom.

About fifteen years ago.

Why we shouldn't support Cornwall's independence movement...

A Cornish nationalist has told us point blank that we "should support Cornish independence". We disagree. We've been bombarded by tales of the area's "Celticness", the awful past actions of the English, and other things.

But as the "Celtic" thing is actually quite recent, and the true impact of Celtic genetic material in the UK is thought to be very scant indeed, we don't think that this is grounds for supporting independence for Cornwall.

Nope, we don't need to encourage such myths about ancient white tribes.

And the "we have more right here than anybody else - we've been here much longer than you," ethos.

We've read quite a lot from "Celtic" nationalists which smacks of anti-English - and other - bigotry.

We don't want to bolster that.

What we should be doing, in our very humble opinion, is to support those in Cornwall who would like a referendum on the matter.

It's up to the people there to decide. Nobody else.

And it should be their RIGHT to decide if they wish to become a free standing country.

Anything else on the part of the rest of England is sticky beaking - and supporting something which contains elements many of us don't fully understand.

And which also contains elements some of us find disturbing - and appears to be relentlessly hostile and uncaring regarding our efforts to get a fairer deal for England as a nation.

Pam Giddy: Nations and Regions

Here's Pam Giddy, Director of Power 2010:

Power 2010 has full-time organisers in every nation and region of the UK .

Nations and regions, Ms Giddy? Surely the UK is a union of nations and the province of Northern Ireland, often referred to as a nation? The only area of England allowed a referendum on regionalisation - effectively the break-up of England by the Imperialist UK Government - voted over 70% NO.

So, where is your respect for the democratic will of the people?

Or were you, in fact, referring to Scotland or Wales as a region?

I suspect not.

Peter Facey And Unlock Democracy - When It Comes To England, Lock-Up Democracy...

EWe're puzzled as to why Unlock Democracy sent out a rallying call to its supporters to deny England the chance of English Votes On English Laws being included in the Power 2010 top five. But it did.

Very strange.

Of course, EVoEL is not absolutely what we want - far from it - but its inclusion in the top five Power 2010 votes would help to keep the question of how England is governed - and the unfair deal all its citizens are receiving - on the political agenda.

We urge readers to go to Power 2010 and vote for EVoEL. If you live in England, it makes sense.

You can do it here.

Campaign For An English Parliament - '70s Music Was Better Than '60s!

Here at WENAP we are big fans of the CEP. But this made us smile:

We are seeing an orchestrated attempt to destroy our English Rock music heritage (which in the 1970s was the best in the world) through the continued dumbing down and sabotage of our culture.

So glad that the CEP recognises how great was the music scene of the 1970s.

The '60s with the Beatles and the Stones and the emergence of Led Zep and Deep Purple? Pooh, we are impervious to that vapid decade's charms - give us Little Willy Won't Go Home and Disco Duck any day!

And we musn't forget that future greats like Duran Duran were formed in the 1970s (1978). OK, Simon Le Bon didn't join till 1980, but still...

LOL!

Of course at the end of the day when it comes to music it's all down to personal opinion, but passing off personal opinion as fact (the 1970s saw English rock music as being the best in the world) strikes us as a little bit sad.

Stick to the point - and stick to the verifiable facts, CEP, please - don't alienate readers with the off-topic (and frankly rather dubious) opinions of your writers!

CEP Press Release: No smoke without fire: secrecy over devolution (The Jack Straw Veto)

Yesterday (10 December), Jack Straw vetoed releasing the minutes of a 1997 Cabinet Ministerial Committee Meeting on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions. He stated that releasing the information would be against the public interest, citing the doctrine of collective responsibility, although the disclosure had previously been approved by the Information Commissioner on June 23rd 2009.

According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed � out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion on which the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.

What are Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can‘t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public deserves to know.

This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.

Unison Union - More Interested In Implementing New Labour Supporting People Policy Than Representing Members' Interests...

From Scotland comes this fascinating article about the in-the-Government's-pocket trade union Unison:

"...corrupt union full-timers more interested in implementing New Labour policy than defending the pay and conditions of their members."

This seems particularly relevant to me at the moment as, under the auspices of the odious Supporting People quango, another round of horrendous cutbacks and redundancies is being carried out in the social care sector. Under orders from and "in cahoots" with Supporting People, the giant axe is swinging again.

A dear friend of mine, who has a front-line job in the care sector which brings in a very meagre salary, faces redundancy, or, possibly, a large drop in salary. No fat cat this. In fact, my friend would have difficulty in affording to keep a domestic cat!

Others are similarly affected and, as usual, the vulnerable adults who are the service users have not been consulted.

And Unison simply waves it all through.

Not a word.

Not a murmur.

Think how they would have behaved if such things had happened in the 1980s!

Hypocrites.

Unison is useless. If you are a member, I think you'd be better off spending your monthly membership fee on chocolate teapots.

Climategate - Boring - Exactly How To Disengage Interest...

God I'm sick of "Gates"! After Sharongate in EastEnders I thought people might drop it at last, but here we are again - "Climategate". I spoke to my sixteen-year-old nephew about it tonight.

"What IS Climategate?" he asked.

"Have you seen the headlines?" I asked.

"Yeah - sounds boring," he said.

"Well, do you know about Watergate?" I asked.

"No," he said.

Surely it would engage far more interest if headlines were a little more descriptive, and did not depend so much on what the younger generation regard as ancient history? I mean, for God's sake - I'm in my forties and I was only eight at the time of Watergate!

Department For Children, Schools And Families: Anti-England Bias Seeps Out - Even Though It Is Supposed To SERVE England

Gareth has received a reply in answer to his freedom of information request regarding the Department of Children, Schools And Families (which covers England only) and its sudden removal of the name of the country it covers from its mission statement.

Remember? From this (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

To this (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make this the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

Extract from Gareth's reply:

Mr Young

Thank you for your email of 11 November asking why the word 'England'
has been replaced with the word 'this' on the Department's website.

You made your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As you
are not seeking access to recorded information I have not dealt with
your request as a Freedom of Information request.

The Department's overall purpose was set out in the Children's Plan,
published in December 2007. In that document the Secretary of State made
clear that 'our aim is to make this the best place in the world for our
children and young people to grow up.' The words set out on the home
page of our website are intended as a close match to the original
expression, and were adjusted as part of routine editing of the website.

This doesn't make sense at all. The extent of the territory covered should be explicit somewhere on the Department's home page. And where better than in the mission statement?

And that territory is England.

A very strange reply indeed.

Looks like awful Ed Balls might be involved... Read Gareth's latest here.

Department For Children, Schools And Families Erases England - We Are Now Called "This"!

Gareth Young has discovered political and racist goings-on at the Department for Children, Schools And Families.

This "department" covers England only, and its mission statement used to read (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

Nice and clear, eh? A nice, clear statement with a commendable goal.

But now the statement reads (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make this the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

This is worrying on two fronts:

1) It makes the area covered by the department unclear. Where on earth is "this"?

2) It opens up a whole can of worms about the New Labour project - including devolution, the West Lothian Question, anti-England/English racism and the Barnett Formula. The mission statement of the Department for Children, Schools And Families is now unclear. Somebody has been in there, muddying the waters, simply by "cleansing" out the word "England". And that also would seem to be a prime concern of "our" Government in its attempts to delude the people of England.

Gareth has sent a Freedom Of Information request -

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_has_the_word_england_been_re

Read Gareth's report here:

http://toque.co.uk/blog/?p=2548

Supporting People - "Floating Support" - More Care Cutbacks In England...

"Floating Support" - the notion is based on an American model and is one the odious Supporting People UK Government agency is now enforcing in England. It basically means withdrawing on-site staff support for vulnerable adults in the community - the elderly, the mentally ill, etc.

There has always been a level of "floating support" - think of the home help/community care assistants/district nurses. But now Supporting People has decided that most people in the community require nothing more than floating support - often against the advice of mental health professionals - and so many of those people who are more physically and/or mentally vulnerable will now see their on-site support go. This is not about encouraging independence. It is about cruelly cutting back. It is often about flying in the face of the views of consultants, doctors and other professionals.

THINK ABOUT THE DOSH! that's all Supporting People care about. Well, we won't see any of it. Where the fuck does it go?

Sooner or later these cuts, this withdrawal of essential suppport, is going to bite the public. You simply can't leave vulnerable people to fend for themselves in this way.

And, as usual, the service users themselves are not truly consulted. They are given several options, but never the status quo.