Murderers Come With Smiles - Ruling England With An Iron Fist...

Came across this on Toque. It apparently originates from an anonymous commenter on Iain Dale's Diary.

Check out the latest nonsense - an "English Grand Committee" no less - coming from the Tories, on the CEP News Blog.

Sorry, Cons, it won't work, won't give England parity with Scotland, and is basically a silly, half-baked idea.

When will somebody decide to do the job properly? Parliament for England, NOW!

Linda Grant - "I think people from Liverpool don't think they're English..."

Wow. Linda Grant, on BBC radio, speaks for a WHOLE city - an English one at that.

Linda apparently writes things about such topics "as the clothes on our backs" (hope the shoe on her foot isn't too cumbersome if she makes a habit of sticking her foot in her gob in this manner) and is apparently the daughter of immigrants.

"I don't really think of my self as being English, because my parents were immigrants. I mean, I was born in England but my father wasn't born in England, and we didn't behave as if we were English."

Is it just me, or is there a whole class of incomers here (and they underline their newness constantly and keep themselves rigidly separate from those professing to be English) which, added to the nauseating prattle of longer established English citizens and the Scottish Raj makes the situation in England rather thornier than it might be?

Whilst Scotland and Wales try to overcome those who will cry "Celtic" and produce modern, inclusive, civic national identities, Englishness is still submerged in the Union vaults for reasons suiting the British project. Of course, many people in England are not terribly aware of what Englishness means, it's been gone for so long.

But do the likes of Linda Grant have to add their two penn'orths? We are, after all, told that we need to exercise sensitivity whilst dealing with people of different ethnicities. Does this mean that people like Linda, who choose to disown their own right to Englishness, should go around making sweeping statements or acting as though Englishness is a faintly bad smell under the nose? Doesn't she understand the need not to go around trampling on other people?

-

I'm absolutely 100% English.

-

My background is half-Scots with a dash of German. That's nothing to do with how I feel about my country of birth.

-

I find Linda Grant's attitude highly offensive.

Please engage brain THEN open mouth in future.

The Cross of St George blog has more details here. Scroll down to "Roots Broadcast on Mainstream Radio".

Brown is careful to avoid the important constitutional issues - CEP Press Release

At the beginning of this week the Scottish Parliament announced that prescriptions will be completely free for everyone in Scotland. For the Welsh they are free already by order of the Welsh Assembly.

But, as a result THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND SUFFER HEALTH APARTHEID, stated David Wildgoose, Yorkshire member of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament.

In England, said Dr Wildgoose, far from being abolished, prescription fees have actually risen. Even more of an outrage is that under the terms of the Barnett formula, a percentage of the tax revenue gained from English prescription charges is automatically handed over to Scotland and Wales.

Why should sick and needy English people, he asked, many of whom may struggle to find the cash to pay these charges, be forced to subsidise the free healthcare in Scotland and Wales that is not available to them? Whatever happened to the NHS principle of a UNIVERSAL health care free to all citizens of the UK at the point of need? On what grounds is it considered acceptable to make an exception fo those UK citizens who happen to be English?

CEP Homepage

Harriet Harman - Anti-English Dictator

Harriet Harman is back on the "let's formally dissolve England into regions" trail according to John Redwood:

Worse still is the government’s threat of a further assault on England. Whilst they are delaying and struggling to work out the detail, Harman yesterday confirmed that they want to establish “regional accountability” around the artificial EU regions proposed for England.

This despite the 78% "NO" vote in the North East, the only area allowed a referendum on regionalisation. Ms Harman's attitude demonstrates so clearly the contempt New Labour has for the electorate in England.

"You don't want what we propose? Well, you WILL have it, you WILL - because WE say so!!" The arrogance is frightening.

-

Hat-tip to the CEP News Blog.

GMTV Gets Involved and Immediately Starts Talking Kack...

Has Wincey's mullet been on assignment for GMTV?

Yep, ITV breakfast TV station GMTV, that seasoned purveyor of political debate, has waded in to the great devolution controversy...

What do you think? Should Scotland be made to raise the money it spends? Or should Great Britain support all of its citizens as equally as possible, as the Barnett formula attempts to do.

Er, the Barnett Formula was introduced for one year to appease Scots Nats in the late 1970s and has never gone away. Its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, has disowned the formula, saying that it is unfair to England and needs to be changed. It was never a formula for fairness. Where did GMTV get that idea? The breakfast thinkers continue...

Would Scotland even need handouts from Westminster if it still controlled its North Sea oil deposits? Let us know your thoughts on the great divide.

Um, Scotland NEVER controlled North Sea oil deposits and it is not a Scottish resource. The oil belongs to the UK. There is even controversy about the UK Government tweaking the maritime border in Scotland's favour, without consulting the English, back in the 1960s, a situation which cannot be allowed to go unresolved if Scotland goes independent. In the meantime, the oil is a UK resource, its proceeds to be shared.

Perhaps GMTV should stick to what it does best, exploring in depth top issues of the day like: "The 1980s Revival: Shoulder Pads, Lycra Leggings, Pixie Boots, Blonde Highlights, Ra Ra Skirts and Deelyboppers. Good Or Bad?"

Or: "What Do You Pop In Your Percolator Every Morning?"

The devolution blurb immediately misinforms readers.

Drew and Fiona wonder: "Who did the research? Wincey Willis' mullet?"

Nah. It would have had more sense. I strongly suspect a GMTV researcher is at the bottom of all this...

The Writers Are Not What They Seem...

The CEP News Blog points out this morning:

There’s not been much ‘added value’ to this blog recently because now that the press seem to be finally doing their job it’s just been a case of directing you to the relevant articles.

Excellent. But sometimes I wonder just what is going on, when I read things like this from a Mr Paterson (apparently English - he carefully refers in the course of his e-mail to "we English") in reply to newspaper articles highlighting the disparities of "Union":

"Devolution was offered to English regions We didnt want a vote on it!So we cant moan about it.I think there is a white lie being spun here about Scotland being subbed by English taxes.If Scotland voted for full independence today ,You will find that London will come up with some excuse not to respect the Scots vote ,We English must ask ourselves WHY?,Does Scotland actually Sub England ! Stop winging and get off your backsides and shout louder,Good luck to Scotland ,She has to shout louder to be heard,Its our own Gvt we should be angry with not the scots."

Read the full Times article here.

This is bizarre nonsense from somebody who is apparently English and living under the effects of health apartheid, the West Lothian Question, etc. England was never offered a vote on "English regions" (an invention of a previous Tory administration, bolstered up by New Labour into expensive talking shops). The only area asked was the North East, which voted 78% "NO".

As for Scotland being subbed by English taxes, there is no doubt about it. How can Mr Paterson think it is any different? After all, North Sea Oil is a UK resource - and quite a lot of it lies in English waters. The Continental Shelf Act of the late 1960s tweaked our maritime border in Scotland's favour, but this has never been ratified by giving a vote on it to the electorate in England, and must be corrected if Scotland leaves the Union.

In the meantime, UK resources should be shared. It is not a case of Scotland being "Britain" when it suits it, or simply "Scotland" when it suits it.

I have read several very anti-English e-mails from apparently "English" folk over the years that we have been debating devolution issues. Is it simply that some English people have very low self esteem and thoroughly enjoy taking a one-eyed anti-English view of the situation? Or is that some contributors are simply not being honest about who or what they are, and aim to muddy the waters with some carefully thought out apparently English anti-English nonsense (if you get my drift)?

After all, if an "English" person is saying that the English are totally in the wrong over devolution issues, they probably have a point, the uninitiated reader might think. After all, they've no axe to grind.

Er...

Over to you, Sherlock...

Back to Indoctrinating Children In English Schools With "Britishness".

According to Christine Gilbert, OFSTED, it is important to indoctrinate children in English schools with "Britishness", although this does not apply in Scotland and Wales...

Ms Gilbert also cautioned that schools were not giving children a clear understanding of their own identity and “what it means to be British”. “Young people understand less than they should about how our democracy works, the forces which have shaped it and its values, history and heritage: in short, what we understand by ’Britishness’ in the contemporary world,” she said.

We've covered this before -

http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2007/01/britishness-indoctrination-but-only-in.html

Whilst we are aware that schools in Scotland and Wales do not have "Britishness" on their curriculums, here in England our children will be BRITISH - or the government and its minions like Christine Gilbert, the OFSTED Chief Inspector, will be demanding to know the reason why.

No inclusive civic English identity, in fact no mention of Englishness at all...

Our children will do as they are told!

To be British basically means to be a citizen of England, Wales or Scotland - it is a recent, highly synthetic nationality designed to further the interests of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish during the times of imperialism.

In these days it is a nonsense. Britishness cannot exist without its component nations or nationalities. Just what is in this for the likes of Christine Gilbert? What she desires is illogical and, in these days of health apartheid, the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula, amounts to corrupt indoctrination of innocent, questioning minds, denying these minds access to the truth about how England is being governed post devolution.

Read more at the The Times - here. Even the photograph caption at Times Online reads:

The annual report of the schools inspectorate has criticised standards in British secondary schools.

Wrong. Its subject matter is only schools in England - English schools. 

Who Can Be English And English Attitudes To Britain...

Writing in Comment is Free, Anthony Giddens has this to say:

We cannot rebuild Britain without confronting the “English question" - the fact that England, the largest nation, is now the only one without separate representation. The West Lothian question, of course, is an offshoot of that. Britain will not survive, let alone become more integrated, if we simply let such issues be. “Britain” is a product of internal and external colonialism, where England was the dominant nation. It will not survive either if “Britain” continues to be widely thought of (by the English) as the same as “England”. How can we strip “England” of its association with being white? Ethnic minorities living in England should be able to feel English as well as British. Such questions can’t be papered over by inventing a few ceremonials.

Good that somebody else has taken up the point that the current state of devolutionary affairs cannot continue, but let's look at the piece more closely:

“Britain” is a product of internal and external colonialism, where England was the dominant nation."

Well, as the largest nation perhaps England could be expected to dominate, but bear in mind that Wales was not a nation, but a principality, and that the Union with Scotland was agreed by elites from both camps, with apparently large numbers of "commoners" not being at all happy with the prospect in both countries.

'It will not survive either if “Britain” continues to be widely thought of (by the English) as the same as “England”. '

So long as it is known that this isn't usually down to arrogance. It's down to the fact that politicians and the media and the "great and the good" routinely substitute "Britain" for England and "British" for "English" at every opportunity, thus giving rise to the notion that England is Britain.

'How can we strip “England” of its association with being white? Ethnic minorities living in England should be able to feel English as well as British.'

For a start, the government could allow a civic English national identity, something the devolved bodies are working on in Scotland and Wales. And people could be encouraged. The black refuse operative told not to wear the Cross of St George as a bandana because it's "racist" and the person I heard on the radio on St George's Day a few years ago, a black Englishman, happily proclaiming the fact, and being told by a white, middle class English presenter that he wasn't English, he was British, everybody was British, are prime examples of just what is wrong in "this country" today.

I'm afraid the answers to Mr Giddens questions are alarmingly simple:

Develop an English civic national identity.

Allow England national representation on a par with Scotland in the UK.

Stop scapegoating England for all the perceived sins of Britain. Remember, the Scots were disproportionately involved in the old British Empire and a Welsh Prime Minister partitioned Ireland.

Apart from all this, I'm glad that Mr Giddens is another voice highlighting the English Question. It's just the inference that it's all somehow come about because we're "not very nice" I take issue with.

Hat tip to the CEP News Blog.

The Gordon Brown "Say England" Petition...

Ever noticed how Gordon Brown says "this country", "YouKay" or "Britain" to help cover up the facts of devolution and his lack of mandatedness in England?

He WILL NOT say "England".

Well, Gareth Young has a new petition on the Downing Street site aimed at remedying the situation. Click on the image above.

Celtgelt - Still Happening?

We're still doing the Celtgelt every time a £20.00 note falls into our grubby little mits. How about you?

Against The Odds - Slough Flies The English Flag...

Slough Town Hall is to fly the Cross of St George, the national flag of England, on St George's Day for the first time next year, thanks to Diana Coad, a prospectuve Tory MP for Slough.

Cue panic in Labour ranks, and a quick quote from a seemingly un-informed bystander...

Says Rob Anderson, Slough's Labour Group Leader: "I do not need to prove my Englishness by wrapping myself in the flag of St George when the Union flag is the flag for everybody."

The "flag for everybody"? No it isn't. It is simply the flag of the UK, it does not represent ethnic diversity. In fact, some see it as an imperialist left-over. And Jack Straw has made plain that public buildings in Scotland and Wales will be exempt from new guidelines to fly the Union flag and be able to fly their own national flags, the Saltire and Welsh dragon instead.

So, "The flag for everybody", Mr Anderson? No. It is simply the flag forced upon England by an increasingly non-democratic government, trying desperately not to reveal to the electorate in England what devolution has done elsewhere.

India-born Professor Vijaya Gupta, founder of the Slough Senior Citizens Group, said: “Regionalism signifies diversity, and can cause havoc. We saw what happened in India as a result of the Partition. England is part of the United Kingdom and I think the Union flag is enough. It covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

Actually, regionalism does not come into it, Professor. England is as much a nation as Scotland or Wales and with devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland running apace, and health apartheid, the West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula heaping inequalities aplenty upon the electorate in England, some form of English national representation is now needed in the UK.

And the English - and by this I mean citizens of England - should be as free to fly their flag from their public buildings as the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

And to have their NHS and public services funded to the same levels as elsewhere in the UK, too.

At the moment, lives in England are not valued as highly as those in Scotland. MPs representing Scots constituencies force legislation onto England and we heavily subsidise the other nations of the UK, to our own detriment.

Anybody who objects to positive manifestations of Englishness in England is, at the best of times, suspect or at the very least ill-informed. But at these, some of the very worst of modern times for every man, woman and child in this country, such people are either on the deeply corrupt political gravy train or so out of touch that they should not be quoted in the first place.

More here.

Hat-tip to Flagman.

Gordon Brown: "Notta Lotta Bottle"... Do You Want A General Election In 2007?

"Notta Lotta Bottle!" chanted the Tory Party, in a charming skit on the famous 1980s milk ads slogan (more here). And yup, Gordon Brown bottled out of calling a General Election.

Democratic rule is evidently not a priority for "this country" as Gordy calls England.

Well, he stated, only 26 people had bothered to sign the Downing Street site petition.

But, as Gareth points out over at the CEP News Blog, there are many more now!

If democracy is important to you, sign it here.

Gordon Brown Decides Against Any Hint Of Democratic Rule For England...

So, Gordon Brown has decided against holding a General Election. Frankly, I'm not surprised. The man craves power and glory and the will of the people would not aid him.

Just remember...

When Gordon Brown talks about "Britishness", he is talking about an entirely synthetic nationality, just three hundred years old. In his own country, Scotland, and in Wales, nationally representative bodies are Scottish and Welsh and these are inclusive nationalities, no bar via race or creed. Gordon Brown and his ilk wish to make out that Englishness is an exclusive ethnicity, and that "Britishness" is wonderful, inclusive, good and kind...

By denying England equality with Scotland, we find that the UK Government has:

1) Caused a system of health apartheid - life prolonging/enhancing medications available on the NHS in Scotland are not available in England, and prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales are scrimped and saved for in England.

2) Made the West Lothian Question of tremendous concern - Top Up Fees and Foundation Hospitals were forced on England by MPs representing Scots constituencies. Ministers for English ministries such as transport need not represent the people of England, it seems. They can represent Scots constituencies, where they have no authority over the relevant legislation as it is devolved.

3) Refused to address the issue of the Barnett Formula. Public spending is still far higher in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than it is in England. The oil issue is a red herring as UK resources should be shared, and the maritime boundary was tweaked in the late 1960s anyway, giving English oil to Scotland! The English were not consulted.

So, when you hear Gordon Brown twittering on prettily about "Britishness" beware. The man is not being modern, inclusive and non-racist. He is simply hoping to perpetuate the system of non-democratic rule and health apartheid in England which he helped to create. He is hoping to hold onto power not given to him by the people.

Here is a man who swiped two billion pounds from the English NHS in his last act as Chancellor, but left the Scots and Welsh budgets intact; here is a man who promised the people a referendum on the EU, but will not allow one; here is a man who simply has no mandate to govern England. When he says "Britain", he lies. The vast majority of legislation passed by his government applies to England only. Health, transport, education and many other areas are devolved in Scotland and an increasing number elsewhere in the so-called UK too.

"Britain" is now a lie. Since devolution kicked in it has not truly existed. It is a sham - a ruse used to manipulate and cheat the people of England.

And, thanks to Gordon Brown bottling out of a General Election, we shall have to put up with this for several years to come.

Scottish Liberal Democrats, Welsh Liberal Democrats and NOW Chinese Liberal Democrats. But No English Liberal Democrats.

It seems more than slightly multicultural to have a Chinese Liberal Democrats. And is the multi-culti thing now on or off? It is deemed good or bad? I've lost track.

The Chinese Liberal Democrats apparently exist to "create a bridge between the UK Chinese community and the Liberal Democrats" and also, puzzlingly, to "establish closer links with China". Why?!!

-

And its patrons are Lord Paddy Ashdown and Sir Menzies Campbell. Sounds like a pathetic bit of posturing to me.

-

Of course, the Lib Dems have made no effort to establish closer links with England or the English. Like the other mainstream parties, the Liberal Democrats treat both with complete and utter contempt.

English Civil War - Rewritten As "British"...

I note that many historical resources around the Internet are referring to what we call the "English Civil War" as the "British Civil War". Surely, civil wars only take place within unified nations, and as Britain did not then exist as a nation, this terminology is inaccurate? I'm not saying that only England was involved in the unrest (I know for a fact that Scotland has its own terms for the era), but from England's perspective "English civil war" was a perfectly legitimate title for this time span. Why should it now be erased?

And what kind of National Archives nonsense is this?

Gallery 5: Why did Britain become a republic?

Aim

The primary focus here is on events from 1647-53 and the shock they caused in the kingdom. A secondary theme is that the execution of Charles and the setting up of the English republic was the result of the actions of a driven, minority group with a clear vision of the country they wanted to create. The existence and actions of these revolutionaries is sometimes overlooked.

Come on, dears, was it an English or British republic?

And then we have this:

Also, the “English” is a problem because it implies much more than “in England”. Even Conrad Russell, with his interest in the British problem, made the mistake of saying that before the entry of Scots and Irish units in 1643, the war was fought between Englishmen. Even before Mark Stoyle’s groundbreaking work in Soldiers and Strangers I was well aware that there were many non-English soldiers in the “English” armies. With his focus on the Welsh and Cornish, Stoyle has made the very concept of “England” look a lot more problematic than I used to think it was. It’s still useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, but perhaps not much more than that.

This brand of academic, England denying twaddle I cannot understand at all. Show me a "pure" Cornishman and I'll probably faint (these "Cornishmen" were not a distinct nationality anyway) and if England is only useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, why not Scotland and Wales?

Answers please...

Prodicus: Is Britishness Merely A State Of Mind, Gordon?

Prodicus has been in touch with news of an interesting post over at his blog:

... can you think of a single case of our thought-masters approving the infliction on, oh, pick any country in the developing world, of what they themselves have deliberately done to England - and to a lesser extent, to Britain - which is to say, they have destroyed, decried and denied its identity and its legitimate culture and customs and sacrificed its 'emotional inheritance' and its people's right to self-determination to both an imperialist foreign government and a group of colonising settlers. NO. If England were a 'developing country', they would march on the very streets for the freedom of the English (and the rest of the British) people and against imperialist interference and oppression. But this, my friends, is England, so all the rules are reversed. They save their energies for Marxist-approved cases like Burma and Kosova. (Not Zimbabwe, note.)

We are living Through the Looking Glass.

Read the full post here.