Recently received...
Our Kingdom immediately proclaimed itself to be something of import and seems to have been accepted as such in certain circles. Must be something to do with the class system! I read it as a boring, fascist site - which favours the UK Gov and EU over equal rights for the English.
Absolutely right. Who decides that Our Kingdom is worthy of reading and contributing to? Who thinks that Our Kingdom, which contains the downward forefinger jabbing, pop-eyed, non-democratic nonsense of the likes of Open Democracy's Peter Facey and the "Quick, write me an e-mail and make it look like it's from an English fascist!" nonsense of Anthony Barnett, is a worthy venture?
Who decides it's a site worth debating at? The site allows much fascist anti-English drivel to be published. Are the Scots, Welsh and "Cornish" Celts? Yes, says Our Kingdom! Does England lack moral vision and so not qualify for democratic rule? Yes, says our Kingdom!
People will say, "Ah, but Our Kingdom is not actually agreeing, it's simply allowing its real estate to be used to put forward these views."
Yes, but if it allowed such views to be expressed about any other nationality, the middle class prigs flocking to attend would fling up their hands in horror!
The likes of Open Democracy - come on down and jab your forefinger here and tell us what put you off the idea of democracy and parity for England, Peter Facey, and Our Kingdom - let's string together the words "English-fascist", does it give you an orgasm, Anthony Barnett? - are so far removed from the ordinary man and woman on the street.
Posing as civilised debate, they mask a heap of fascist, biased crap - all of it levelled against England.
Come down to our local high street Mr Facey, where we were discussing the need for an English Parliament this morning, downward jab your forefinger at us and tell us why regionalisation by the UK Government is best.
Get out into the real world. But then it's not really your scene, is it?
And Anthony Barnett, you already know what a rough and ready rabble the English are, don't you?
IOHO, Our Kingdom and Unlock Democracy is staffed by unreasonable, anti-English racists, to whom the so-called "Union" is God.
Lying, arrogant fuckwits.
This blog is not right wing or left wing. It simply points out the facts regarding asymmetric national devolution, which is based on Edward Lhuyd's 1707 Celtic myth and historical revisionism, and how it disadvantages ALL people in the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country of all - England.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Neil Harding Thread - A Pearl Of Wisdom!
David, from Britologywatch, sent the comment below to the Neil Harding thread. It seemed far too interesting to be left there!
Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!
Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!
More From Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for writing again:
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Scottish Racist
Alfie carries news of a Church of Scotland cleric, spreading words of peace and love about the English to impressionable young minds in a Scots primary school following last night's earthquake in England:
He stood up, dressed in all his Christian finery, dog collar and regulation comb-over - and delivered his talk to a hall packed with impressionable young minds and their parents. He mentioned current events, spreading his Christian message throughout, weaving the Christian virtues of forgiveness, understanding and friendship throughout the speech.
He wound up with the story about last night's earthquake in Lincolnshire, England. He said that the 'quake was felt right across England and that there are initial reports of some structural damage.. He finished with the quote - "It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people"....
Read the full story here.
He stood up, dressed in all his Christian finery, dog collar and regulation comb-over - and delivered his talk to a hall packed with impressionable young minds and their parents. He mentioned current events, spreading his Christian message throughout, weaving the Christian virtues of forgiveness, understanding and friendship throughout the speech.
He wound up with the story about last night's earthquake in Lincolnshire, England. He said that the 'quake was felt right across England and that there are initial reports of some structural damage.. He finished with the quote - "It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people"....
Read the full story here.
Our Kingdom Again: "Ominously" Anthony Barnett
Anthony Barnett writes a strange piece about Janet Daley's Telegraph article on defining Britishness.
Well, it's strange for those who are not used to his little ways on Our Kingdom.
Mr Barnett runs straight down the comments thread and grabs hold of a comment beginning:
I do so agree with those who prefer to be English rather than British. It makes me feel very resentful when I hear discussions where people are described as Asians, African, Afro-Caribeans and we are described as White (often by foreigners to these shores)I frequently point out that White is not a nationality and that my nationality is English.
And then Mr Barnett, of course, immediately decides that the writer is a racist.
But doesn't the problem actually lie elsewhere? Isn't it the UK Government which suppresses English national identity, whilst encouraging others? Isn't it the UK Government which brings a person's colour in to official form filling? Are you "White British" or "Black British"?
Perhaps it would be better to ask if people regard themselves as English or British? Because the array of tick boxes and the absence of an "English" option tick box is bewildering. Or perhaps the UK Government could follow what is happening elsewhere and list options such as "Jewish-English"?
Whatever, the Government's attempts to divide and rule and its refusal to recognise England and Englishness are what is at the root of this.
I wouldn't wrap me chips in "Our Kingdom"!
Well, it's strange for those who are not used to his little ways on Our Kingdom.
Mr Barnett runs straight down the comments thread and grabs hold of a comment beginning:
I do so agree with those who prefer to be English rather than British. It makes me feel very resentful when I hear discussions where people are described as Asians, African, Afro-Caribeans and we are described as White (often by foreigners to these shores)I frequently point out that White is not a nationality and that my nationality is English.
And then Mr Barnett, of course, immediately decides that the writer is a racist.
But doesn't the problem actually lie elsewhere? Isn't it the UK Government which suppresses English national identity, whilst encouraging others? Isn't it the UK Government which brings a person's colour in to official form filling? Are you "White British" or "Black British"?
Perhaps it would be better to ask if people regard themselves as English or British? Because the array of tick boxes and the absence of an "English" option tick box is bewildering. Or perhaps the UK Government could follow what is happening elsewhere and list options such as "Jewish-English"?
Whatever, the Government's attempts to divide and rule and its refusal to recognise England and Englishness are what is at the root of this.
I wouldn't wrap me chips in "Our Kingdom"!
Our Kingdom Is Thrilled!
I had to smile when I read this on Our Kingdom. How thrilling for its priggish, anti-English/England writers that a film apparently depicting skinheads in the 1980s has made best "British" film!
"YES! Well done, Shane!" Quick, file under England, fascism...
You can just imagine the writer, almost pooing his usually pristine geeky knickers to get that online.
A couple of points:
The skinhead thing was up and running well before the 1980s as was football hooliganism - fans were being penned in in the early 1970s.
Old Labour voter, that was me, hated Thatcher, but this constant priggish nonsense about the 1980s is very wearing. Just for a change, couldn't it have been set in the just as grim 70s?
The other point is the constant anti-English bias of "Our Kingdom". The makers of the "This Is England" film were, I suggest, very ignorant in trying to portray English nationalism in this light in the modern day and age.
This is the age of the West Lothian Question, a non-representative PM ruling England, health apartheid, etc. It would be refreshing to see something set in the modern day, highlighting the current forms of English nationalism and the reasons for it.
We have a government which habitually discriminates against every man, woman and child in England, valuing Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish lives far higher than ours.
And yet some film makers and "Our Kingdom" are anxious to promote English nationalism as it was in the 60s/70s/80s.
Great.
I do not recommend "Our Kingdom". Sometimes I suspect that the people behind it are all clones of Tristram Fourmile.
Actually, it strikes me that England was used as a negative (remember "Oi! For England"?) and Britain as a positive even back in the '80s. UK PLC brainwashing was obviously up and running. But, after the devolution scares of the '70s, nobody was going to examine Scots' racism. Which is great. And probably contributes to the way the arrogant, non-insightful likes of Gordon Brown strut around Westminster now.
And other little things.
Like health apartheid.
"YES! Well done, Shane!" Quick, file under England, fascism...
You can just imagine the writer, almost pooing his usually pristine geeky knickers to get that online.
A couple of points:
The skinhead thing was up and running well before the 1980s as was football hooliganism - fans were being penned in in the early 1970s.
Old Labour voter, that was me, hated Thatcher, but this constant priggish nonsense about the 1980s is very wearing. Just for a change, couldn't it have been set in the just as grim 70s?
The other point is the constant anti-English bias of "Our Kingdom". The makers of the "This Is England" film were, I suggest, very ignorant in trying to portray English nationalism in this light in the modern day and age.
This is the age of the West Lothian Question, a non-representative PM ruling England, health apartheid, etc. It would be refreshing to see something set in the modern day, highlighting the current forms of English nationalism and the reasons for it.
We have a government which habitually discriminates against every man, woman and child in England, valuing Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish lives far higher than ours.
And yet some film makers and "Our Kingdom" are anxious to promote English nationalism as it was in the 60s/70s/80s.
Great.
I do not recommend "Our Kingdom". Sometimes I suspect that the people behind it are all clones of Tristram Fourmile.
Actually, it strikes me that England was used as a negative (remember "Oi! For England"?) and Britain as a positive even back in the '80s. UK PLC brainwashing was obviously up and running. But, after the devolution scares of the '70s, nobody was going to examine Scots' racism. Which is great. And probably contributes to the way the arrogant, non-insightful likes of Gordon Brown strut around Westminster now.
And other little things.
Like health apartheid.
Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for e-mailing us regarding his racist comments about "mongrel" England. Below, Mr Harding withdraws some of his comments, perhaps we, and all nations, are "hybrid"?
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Neil Harding - The English Are Ignorant, Impure Mongrels Who Do Not Qualify For Democratic Rule
How odd that Neil Harding, of Brighton Regency Labour Party, thinks that the English should not have a national parliament because they are not pure enough.
“There is a certain irony to nationalist calls for an English ‘parliament’ and their calls to leave the EU - to be ruled by the ‘English’, when in fact the public school dominated ruling classes in London are probably more French than those in Brussels in terms of their ancestry”
Mr Harding then goes on to cite things that (apparently) arrived here from abroad and just how "mongrelised" we are.
This is apparently justification for us not having a say on the EU or having our own national parliament.
We're not "pure" enough!
Mr Harding has no such difficulties with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course.
We doubt the accuracy of some of Mr Harding's statements, but we fully accept that England is a mongrel nation. Aren't all/most nations?
The UK Government/EU regions are not based on, nor correspond to, ancient Anglo Saxon kingdoms as Mr Harding states either.
Neil Harding's argument all boils down to the fact that we're not clever enough, innovative enough or PURE enough to qualify for democratic rule.
Neil Harding - fascist!
Big hat tips to The Secret Person, via The England Project.
“There is a certain irony to nationalist calls for an English ‘parliament’ and their calls to leave the EU - to be ruled by the ‘English’, when in fact the public school dominated ruling classes in London are probably more French than those in Brussels in terms of their ancestry”
Mr Harding then goes on to cite things that (apparently) arrived here from abroad and just how "mongrelised" we are.
This is apparently justification for us not having a say on the EU or having our own national parliament.
We're not "pure" enough!
Mr Harding has no such difficulties with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course.
We doubt the accuracy of some of Mr Harding's statements, but we fully accept that England is a mongrel nation. Aren't all/most nations?
The UK Government/EU regions are not based on, nor correspond to, ancient Anglo Saxon kingdoms as Mr Harding states either.
Neil Harding's argument all boils down to the fact that we're not clever enough, innovative enough or PURE enough to qualify for democratic rule.
Neil Harding - fascist!
Big hat tips to The Secret Person, via The England Project.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Christine Grahame, MSP - Another Liar?
It doesn't really matter how it's achieved, but Scotland is determined to have what is not rightfully Scotland's to have - and Christine Grahame, MSP, is one of the ring leaders.Christine has been misleading the Daily Express concerning the maritime border between England and Scotland. In the 1960s, the border, which pointed upwards in line with the land border and international convention, was tweaked, ceding English North sea oil and gas to Scotland. As we were a "UK" and resources were to be shared equally, it was felt not to matter a jot. The UK Government opted not to consult the English.
Any changes since have not returned the border to its original state, but Christine Grahame is trying to make out that further tweaking in 1999 stole waters from the Scots! This is very rich indeed as that particular tweaking did nothing to restore any where near England's rightful share of the gas and oil.
Ms Grahame is trying to make out that the 1960s alteration, carried out without consulting the English, is the "historic border".
Oh dear.
And the Daily Express believes her.
Oh dear.
It could be that Christine Grahame does not do research. Or it could be that she is a simply a liar.
But whatever she is, she does Scotland's reputation no good at all.
Read Ms Grahame's spinnings on the Daily Express site - here.
UPDATE - RECEIVED, 1/3/08:
Sue Campbell:
Born in England, but more Scottish than day old haggis, Christine Grahame uses her place of birth to try and make out that her actions are justified and that she's truly fair-minded. In reality, she's a conniving anti-English... er... MSP!
The SNP are anxious to use her to front their most dishonest endeavours, because then they can say: "But she was born in England! She's English! She has no axe to grind!"
No she isn't English - and yes she does have an axe to grind. She hates the English. I was born in Scotland and my Dad's a Scot, but believe me nationality's really a state of mind and I'm English!
Berwick-Upon-Tweed: Scots Out To Grab More English Oil And Gas?
It just occurs to us sitting here at WENAP Towers that the disgraceful attempt by the Scottish Parliament to bribe Berwick-Upon-Tweed into joining Scotland's corrupt elite of plenty, could be an attempt to steal more of England's North Sea oil and gas.What happened in the 1960s was remarkable: without a word of consultation with the English, the UK Government moved the maritime border, ensuring that a large amount of English North Sea oil and gas was gifted to the Scots. It was seen as not mattering as we were a "United Kingdom" and resources were supposed to be equally shared.
Now, Alex Salmond makes hay with the border, claims all the North Sea oil and gas for Scotland, and tries to hide the border's tweaking from interested onlookers, going so far as to conceal the facts on "national" UK TV.
The Scottish Parliament's attempts to bribe Berwick-Upon-Tweed (and remember, voters in the TV referendum were voting to become part of Scotland not because they wanted to be Scots, but because they wanted the free care, cancer medications, etc, available in Scotland due to subsidies from England via the Barnett Formula) are probably, no more no less, an attempt to steal more of England's resources. Won't this land grab result in a corresponding maritime border grab?
What a shitty little country Scotland is becoming.
Monday, February 18, 2008
ITV Tonight: Alex Salmond Lies About North Sea Oil
From the CEP News Blog:
The Tonight programme on ITV1 tonight investigated the differences between the funding and treatment of English and Scottish people including a mock referendum in Berwick on Tweed asking whether Berwickers wanted to remain in England or become part of Scotland.
It’s rare to get this kind of documentary on any channel, let alone ITV1 and it was quite well done. The programme concentrated on the spending differences - the Scots get an average of £1,500 per head per year more than the English - and the differences in benefits they get as a result such as not having to pay university top-up fees, getting free cancer treatment that the English aren’t entitled to, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, etc. And they did it without trying to justify it which is a novelty.
The only downside was that they didn’t counter the tired old argument of “oor oil”. Alex Salmond said - more than once - that Scotland was subsidising Britain with North Sea oil and gas revenues and that it would be unfair to cut public spending in Scotland whilst the UK Treasury (in London, he always makes a point of saying in London) “continues to drain North Sea oil and gas revenues”.
North Sea oil and gas, despite Alex Salmond’s big plans, is not all rightfully Scottish. In the 60’s the maritime border was moved, in contravention of international maritime law, to extend along a line of longtitude instead of being an extension of the land border. The English were not asked if they were happy to cede their waters to Scotland and lose the oil and gas fields contained therein. Devolution for Scotland (but never for England of course) was on the cards back in the 60’s so it is a reasonable assumption that British MPs took this decision in the knowledge that Scotland would claim the waters once it gained fiscal autonomy. Robbing Peter England to pay Paul Scotland.
Read it all here.
Alex Salmond really is a liar of the highest order, but even if what he said were true, it is totally against the ethos of a United Kingdom that resources should be retained by one particular region in this manner. It also shows just how conniving and uncaring the SNP have become.
Salmond is another shameful item to add to an ever increasing list for poor old Scotland. What with Brown this side of the border and Salmond that side, it seems that conniving twisters are holding all the cards in the so-called UK today.
Where does Salmond get his figures from? Even if the maritime border was left in its current incorrect state, not all North Sea Oil and Gas belongs to Scotland, and an article in the Guardian last year stated that even if ALL North Sea Oil and Gas revenues were given to Scotland, the country still would not break even -
Tax revenues from Scotland almost match the country's £49.2bn a year public spending - although only if all North Sea oil and gas revenues are attributed to Edinburgh, a controversial allocation.
Read it all here!
More WENAP material on the subject of North Sea Oil here.
The Tonight programme on ITV1 tonight investigated the differences between the funding and treatment of English and Scottish people including a mock referendum in Berwick on Tweed asking whether Berwickers wanted to remain in England or become part of Scotland.
It’s rare to get this kind of documentary on any channel, let alone ITV1 and it was quite well done. The programme concentrated on the spending differences - the Scots get an average of £1,500 per head per year more than the English - and the differences in benefits they get as a result such as not having to pay university top-up fees, getting free cancer treatment that the English aren’t entitled to, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, etc. And they did it without trying to justify it which is a novelty.
The only downside was that they didn’t counter the tired old argument of “oor oil”. Alex Salmond said - more than once - that Scotland was subsidising Britain with North Sea oil and gas revenues and that it would be unfair to cut public spending in Scotland whilst the UK Treasury (in London, he always makes a point of saying in London) “continues to drain North Sea oil and gas revenues”.
North Sea oil and gas, despite Alex Salmond’s big plans, is not all rightfully Scottish. In the 60’s the maritime border was moved, in contravention of international maritime law, to extend along a line of longtitude instead of being an extension of the land border. The English were not asked if they were happy to cede their waters to Scotland and lose the oil and gas fields contained therein. Devolution for Scotland (but never for England of course) was on the cards back in the 60’s so it is a reasonable assumption that British MPs took this decision in the knowledge that Scotland would claim the waters once it gained fiscal autonomy. Robbing Peter England to pay Paul Scotland.
Read it all here.
Alex Salmond really is a liar of the highest order, but even if what he said were true, it is totally against the ethos of a United Kingdom that resources should be retained by one particular region in this manner. It also shows just how conniving and uncaring the SNP have become.
Salmond is another shameful item to add to an ever increasing list for poor old Scotland. What with Brown this side of the border and Salmond that side, it seems that conniving twisters are holding all the cards in the so-called UK today.
Where does Salmond get his figures from? Even if the maritime border was left in its current incorrect state, not all North Sea Oil and Gas belongs to Scotland, and an article in the Guardian last year stated that even if ALL North Sea Oil and Gas revenues were given to Scotland, the country still would not break even -
Tax revenues from Scotland almost match the country's £49.2bn a year public spending - although only if all North Sea oil and gas revenues are attributed to Edinburgh, a controversial allocation.
Read it all here!
More WENAP material on the subject of North Sea Oil here.
Campaign For An English Parliament Press Release: The English National Health Service Is Losing Millions To Wales
The Health Service Journal reports that diverging health policies in England and Wales are causing English hospitals to lose millions of pounds.
The Welsh Assembly government has instructed local health boards, including those that use English hospitals, not to pay for elective treatment unless it is authorised in advance. Even then they will only pay a negotiated price rather than the tariff under payment by results, the system by which English hospitals are required to charge, although cross-border agreements have established that the Welsh commissioners should pay in this way.
Separation of the nations of the UK by governance, called devolution, constantly works against the interests of England. Funding across the UK, decided by the British government, ensures that England (£6,762) gets the lowest funding per head and Wales (£7,666) is more generously funded. The Welsh Assembly Government has used this subsidy, paid for by English taxpayers, to abolish prescription charges but refuses to pay its due to the financially strapped English Health Service that its citizens use.
Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament asks “how many English patients’ health is being put at risk by the actions of the Welsh Commissioners?” and “When will so-called English MPs fight against this constitutional discrimination against their constituents”
The only way this discrimination can be addressed is by a dedicated Parliament for England.
End of Press Release.
For more details and added comment contact:
Michael Knowles: Head of CEP Media Union
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
or
Scilla Cullen, CEP Chairman,
Tel: 01438 83315 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
The Welsh Assembly government has instructed local health boards, including those that use English hospitals, not to pay for elective treatment unless it is authorised in advance. Even then they will only pay a negotiated price rather than the tariff under payment by results, the system by which English hospitals are required to charge, although cross-border agreements have established that the Welsh commissioners should pay in this way.
Separation of the nations of the UK by governance, called devolution, constantly works against the interests of England. Funding across the UK, decided by the British government, ensures that England (£6,762) gets the lowest funding per head and Wales (£7,666) is more generously funded. The Welsh Assembly Government has used this subsidy, paid for by English taxpayers, to abolish prescription charges but refuses to pay its due to the financially strapped English Health Service that its citizens use.
Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament asks “how many English patients’ health is being put at risk by the actions of the Welsh Commissioners?” and “When will so-called English MPs fight against this constitutional discrimination against their constituents”
The only way this discrimination can be addressed is by a dedicated Parliament for England.
End of Press Release.
For more details and added comment contact:
Michael Knowles: Head of CEP Media Union
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
or
Scilla Cullen, CEP Chairman,
Tel: 01438 83315 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Unlock Democracy? As Far As England Is Concerned, Let's Keep It Locked, Says Peter Facey
"Are you a Celtic nationalist? Ooh, may I lick your bottom? You're English? Well, you can get stuffed, you mongrel!"Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy:
I don’t see why central government, whether UK or English, should control issues that are local or regional in nature.
Basically, Mr Facey sees regionalisation of England at the behest of Scots and Welsh MPs as something worthy of prioritising. A representative national parliament for England? No, not important.
But surely democracy is about representation, surely a representative government should be overseeing England's future internal governance? Not important, says the surprisingly undemocratic Mr Facey.
However, in good old fascist "Our Kingdom" style, Mr Facey pauses to lick the arses of "pure Celtic" nationalists:
"I personally have never argued that a region like London or the North East is the same as Wales or Scotland, because they are part of a wider nation. With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character..."
I personally have friends in Cornwall who view themselves as English and Cornwall as a county, Mr Facey. Don't their views count? Are you just concerned to get a perceived persecuted minority on your side, so that Mr So Called Pure-Celt of the Lizard will applaud you?
Cornwall needs a referendum to decide its future, as does the whole of England in fact.
Mr Facey is keen to see things are good locally. But how can they be when the decisions about how things are organised locally are out of our politicians' hands? When "our" politicians are never called to account for their actions as regards England anyway?
And what about health apartheid? The West Lothian Question? The Barnett Formula?
What motivates people like Peter Facey? What gives?
Unlock Democracy? Quite the reverse as far as England is concerned.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Berwick-Upon-Tweed Votes To Join The Scots Elite - And Shits On England
Residents in the English town of Berwick-upon-Tweed have voted in a TV poll to"re-join Scotland".
The town has changed nations at least thirteen times in the dim-and-distant past but has been part of England for centuries.
To quote the BBC online article:
According to a poll by a TV company, 60% of those who responded wanted the town to be administered by Scotland.
Better financed public services, including free personal health care for the elderly, were the main reasons.
The injustice being done to England matters not. There's no sense of loyalty or solidarity. Let's go and join the elite, say the fine, upstanding folk of Berwick. Fine. Goodbye, Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The current unfair circumstances cannot last much longer and the dear wee town may soon find itself facing a very different situation in Scotland as England fights its way to equality or the UK splits up.
Whatever happens, Berwick's "I'm all right, Jack" attitude should not be forgotten and any vote carried out to join Scotland should be binding for at least a century.
The town has changed nations at least thirteen times in the dim-and-distant past but has been part of England for centuries.
To quote the BBC online article:
According to a poll by a TV company, 60% of those who responded wanted the town to be administered by Scotland.
Better financed public services, including free personal health care for the elderly, were the main reasons.
The injustice being done to England matters not. There's no sense of loyalty or solidarity. Let's go and join the elite, say the fine, upstanding folk of Berwick. Fine. Goodbye, Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The current unfair circumstances cannot last much longer and the dear wee town may soon find itself facing a very different situation in Scotland as England fights its way to equality or the UK splits up.
Whatever happens, Berwick's "I'm all right, Jack" attitude should not be forgotten and any vote carried out to join Scotland should be binding for at least a century.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
CEP Press Release: England Outraged By Scottish Attempt To Grab English Territory
The members of the Campaign for an English Parliament will resist with might and main the attempt being made by the Scottish Nationalist Party to grab Berwick on Tweed which has been part of England since the 13th century - over 700 years- and make it part of Scotland.
Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame supported by fellow SNP members is lodging a vote in the Scottish Parliament in support of this land-grab.
Already the Scottish Parliament has claimed rights over all English rivers such as the River Till in Northumberland which flow into the River Tweed, even though the Tweed is the boundary river between the two nations of England and Scotland and belongs to neither. And the Scottish Parliament has been able to move southwards the boundary between England and Scotland which till devolution has always run along the very centre of the Solway Firth. To date the United Kingdom Government with its Scottish Prime Minister and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to stop these successive land grabs.
"The Scots are stirring up a hornets' nest of real trouble within the United Kingdom with these policies. And we will take them on," stated Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign. "The people of England will not put up with any more of it. Already Wales has been given the English county of Monmouthshire and even a part of the city of Chester in what is the county of Cheshire. It is already intolerable that devolution for Scotland has granted it huge benefits denied to England such as free university education, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, as much as £1500 more spent on each Scot per annum than on any person in England and access to cancer drugs not obtainable in England. What the Scots are doing is sowing the seeds of real anger and dissension within the Union. They are sowing the wind. If they try to grab Berwick, it will be the Union that will reap the whirlwind.'
Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame supported by fellow SNP members is lodging a vote in the Scottish Parliament in support of this land-grab.
Already the Scottish Parliament has claimed rights over all English rivers such as the River Till in Northumberland which flow into the River Tweed, even though the Tweed is the boundary river between the two nations of England and Scotland and belongs to neither. And the Scottish Parliament has been able to move southwards the boundary between England and Scotland which till devolution has always run along the very centre of the Solway Firth. To date the United Kingdom Government with its Scottish Prime Minister and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to stop these successive land grabs.
"The Scots are stirring up a hornets' nest of real trouble within the United Kingdom with these policies. And we will take them on," stated Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign. "The people of England will not put up with any more of it. Already Wales has been given the English county of Monmouthshire and even a part of the city of Chester in what is the county of Cheshire. It is already intolerable that devolution for Scotland has granted it huge benefits denied to England such as free university education, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, as much as £1500 more spent on each Scot per annum than on any person in England and access to cancer drugs not obtainable in England. What the Scots are doing is sowing the seeds of real anger and dissension within the Union. They are sowing the wind. If they try to grab Berwick, it will be the Union that will reap the whirlwind.'
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Daily Mail Deceives Public Over Caroline Flint's Role
I noticed whilst reading this Daily Mail article by James Chapman -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
that the paper has not mentioned ANYWHERE that Caroline Flint's authority is not UK-wide - that she is only housing minister for England.
Several people that I know of wrote to the Mail yesterday pointing this out, as I did myself, but none of the e-mails have been published. Today I have sent this:
Ms Flint is not responsible for housing policy in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, which have their own devolved governments/assemblies. So why isn't this pointed out? This newspaper's staff are either trying to deceive the public into believing that devolution has made no difference, and so bolster up New Labour's Unionist lies, or your so-called "journalists" are simply thick.
Whatever the truth, this article is garbage, the fact that Caroline Flint only has control of England's housing should be pointed out as a matter of course.
I have written before with this point, but you haven't publish it, and I am now advertising that fact on my blog.
It really is time the corrupt British Press was MADE to tell the truth about devolution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
that the paper has not mentioned ANYWHERE that Caroline Flint's authority is not UK-wide - that she is only housing minister for England.
Several people that I know of wrote to the Mail yesterday pointing this out, as I did myself, but none of the e-mails have been published. Today I have sent this:
Ms Flint is not responsible for housing policy in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, which have their own devolved governments/assemblies. So why isn't this pointed out? This newspaper's staff are either trying to deceive the public into believing that devolution has made no difference, and so bolster up New Labour's Unionist lies, or your so-called "journalists" are simply thick.
Whatever the truth, this article is garbage, the fact that Caroline Flint only has control of England's housing should be pointed out as a matter of course.
I have written before with this point, but you haven't publish it, and I am now advertising that fact on my blog.
It really is time the corrupt British Press was MADE to tell the truth about devolution.
Supporting People (Communities and Local Government)
The recent outrageous comments from Caroline Flint, UK Government Housing Minister responsible for housing in England only, has set us thinking. The most terrible things are happening to social housing across England. Take the vulnerable: all involved on this blog have worked in registered community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities. In recent years, tenants of these homes were sold a downright lie by this government: become deregistered, leave the safety of being a Social Services monitored establishment, transfer to the auspices of a government agency called “Supporting People”, and you shall have more, lots more, financial input, including staffing, they were told.These people are highly vulnerable and were basically told a whopping great lie.
Many community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities are now falling into disrepair as maintainence budgets are slashed; staffing hours too have been cut - in some cases up to 50%, and vulnerable adults used to and IN NEED OF 24 hour staff support must now spend the night with no staff on the premises.
Supporting People covers its actions well, pretending to be interested in “encouraging independence”. All of us at WENAP have been involved in social care work since the early 1980s and that has always been the aim. But under Supporting People we find this “aim” is now a thin cover for savage cutbacks.
Staff are being forced to take on duties above and beyond their training, salary scale and job descriptions as social care agencies compete for tenders on a vicious open market where the cheapest bid wins - and to hell with standards.
And staff have it written into their contracts that any speaking out will face disciplinary action and dismissal.
And all this has happened not under Thatcher, not under Major, but under Blair and Brown.
As old Labour voters and care workers we are bloody angry.
Visit Supporting People - http://www.spkweb.org.uk/
We’re absolutely committed to exposing this corrupt UK government agency, which is wreaking havoc across England, for what it is. You may never have heard of it before, but now that you have please keep your eyes and your ears open. Do not believe the facade. If you have a relative or friend in a social care home provided by a housing society or local authority, please monitor standards. Question the staff and management closely about anything you are unhappy about. Encourage your friend/relative to speak up. Was 24 hour "sleep-in" cover previously provided by staff? Has it been cut or is it about to be? In your opinion, are the people in this home of the state of mind/physical ability to be left alone over night?
What about decoration/maintenance/cleaning standards/furnishings?
Many of the people living in these homes have been institutionalised for long periods of their lives and are unused to speaking up for themselves, and so this government, via Supporting People, is making hay.
Please join us in fighting to restore decent levels of care and support to those in need of it in community homes across England and bring about an end to Supporting People.
Shout loud about it. Ask questions. refuse to be misled. This is one of our anti-English UK Government's harbingers of evil which has so far managed to slip underneath the search beams of those seeking justice and parity for England in the modern day UK.
Let's change that.
Now.
Please.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Caroline Flint
Caroline Flint, new Housing Minister in her "I Love The 1960s" trousers. She's another of NuLabour's smug twisters and liars. They've got a million of 'em!Has everybody seen THIS?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770
Whatever you think of the concept (we personally think it stinks) you have to admire Ms Flint’s brazen attitude in making out that her remit covers the whole of the UK and that she is seeking a “national consensus”. Meanwhile, we must pity the moronic tendencies of Adam Sampson, chief executive of Shelter, who seems unaware that it is not “Britain’s unemployed” who are the subject of this latest proposal, but ENGLAND’S.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)