The UK establishment avoids addressing the most outrageous constitutional injustice of all. It is the way England is being treated.
'The whole UK Establishment of politicians and media are rampaging about, like ferrets in a warrren of their own making, frothing, slavering and sweating over constitutional reform. But very deliberately they are all, every single one of them, ignoring even to mention, let alone address, the biggest political and constitutional injustice of all in the UK system of government. It is the way they are treating the nation of England.' That is the message of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament which met in Holborn in London on Wednesday May 27th to discuss the political crisis now facing Britain and its implications for England.
'And not just the politicians and the media. The academic Establishment as well. The very day we met Professor Vernon Bogdanor fellow of Brazenose College, professor of politics at Oxford, former tutor of David Cameron, advisor to the House of Commons Justice Committee on constitutional matters, was writing in the Guardian newspaper that there had been 're-distribution of power to politicians in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London'. We can only suppose that journalists and members of parliament can be excused the glaring mistakes they make when it comes to understanding the UK political system when the Oxbridge dons they consult can get it so hopelessly wrong. Likewise in the course of last week the Justice Committee itself and the Institute for Public Policy Research has produced publcations on devolution which deliberately shy away from addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the 1998 legislation.
'In the 1998 devolution legislation Scotland and Wales were given political, constitutional and legal recognition as distinct nations within the UK. Not England. They got independent self-rule through having their own parliament and assembly, Scotland got as much as 75% independent self rule. England got nothing. England politically and constitutionally does not even exist. Scottish and Welsh MPs can legislate in what is historically England's own House of Commons on every single aspect of English life. No English MP can as much as discuss Scotish matters, let alone legislate on them. Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling can make laws about education, health and social services, culture, sport, media, the list is endless, in respect of England. But the utter constitutional stupidity is that they have no say at all as MPs in those very same affairs in their own Scottish constituencies. Only Members of the Scottish Parliament have. Thanks to devolution Scottish students pay no university fees, Scottish pensioners no personal care charges, do not need to sell their houses, all Scottish council tax is frozen, the Welsh pay no prescription charges, the Scots and the Welsh pay no hospital parking charges. But the English people have to pay in every one of these instances. And worse than that, much worse, through their taxes, to the amount of £281 extra per person per annum, the English people pay for the benefits which the Scots and the Welsh receive and which they themselves are denied.
'The Guardian newspaper, just to take one example, devotes pages after page to pundits like Vernon Bogdanor pontificating on constitutional reform of government. The three Party leaders, Brown, Cameron and Clegg, are competing with each other to come up with the most sellable and vote-winning, programme. Not one of the whole lot of them throughout the UK Establishment, thinks of England. But we are thinking of England. The People of England are 80% of the UK population. Our people deserve justice. They deserve national recognition. They deserve the same degree of self-rule as the Scots have got. They deserve the same benefits the rest of the UK has been given, and given so lavishly. We will not rest from the 'mental fight' the English poet and mystic Blake demands of us, to achieve Jerusalem, the goal of justice and equality, for England.'
Contacts
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Justice Committee On Devolution - Politicians Still Do Not Want England To Have A Say In How It Is Governed...
In its report, Devolution: A Decade On, The Justice Committee had decided that devolution for England is unfinished business, and that England is locked in a "pre-devolution timewarp".
"But England, which has 84 per cent of the population, is the unfinished business of devolution-stuck in a pre-devolution time warp, while the rest of the UK has moved on. The funding formula is also a relic from earlier times, taking no account of the current need of the various nations and regions of the United Kingdom."
"But England, which has 84 per cent of the population, is the unfinished business of devolution-stuck in a pre-devolution time warp, while the rest of the UK has moved on. The funding formula is also a relic from earlier times, taking no account of the current need of the various nations and regions of the United Kingdom."
It's a bit too late to worry about that. Having started the process of devolution by respecting the existence of Wales and Scotland as nations, and giving their peoples a vote, the UK Government has no other option but to similarly respect England and extend the same right to the people of England.
It awes me that these politicians are still chuntering away, trying to decide our future, whilst in no way recognising our right to be treated in exactly the same way as the UK Government treated the Scots, Welsh and later the Northern Irish.
The arrogance of it!
Meanwhile, the findings of the committee don't appear to be widely reported at all in England.
The media is burying the devolution issue again, it seems...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
England 2018 - Brandish Those Scottish Colours And Be Proud!
Ah, England 2018...But hang on a bit! What's a Scots constituency MP doing there - unelected as PM, unaccountable to the electorate in England, and not terribly popular anywhere?
And why is David Beckham, delightful Nivea boy and "does my dick look big in these designer underpants? Go on - buy a pair!" merchant, holding a scarf which appears to be in Scots saltire colours?
Does the Scotland football team brandish blue and white and red and white scarves?
No?
Very sensible.
Big hat tip to Tommy English. Sorry, Tom, I nicked your picture!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Celts - A Modern (And Highly Exclusive) Fantasy?
From the fascinating Bloggin Fae the Burn blogspot:
However, anti-Englishness seems, in some quarters, to be acceptable. Northern Ireland-style sectarianism has often been described as "Scotland's Secret Shame" - but others now see anti-Englishness as a much bigger problem there. (Have a look at this page, and some of the posts - especially no. 109). The label "Celtic" can be one way that English people are alienated and branded as outsiders. Politics, nationalism and romantic nonsense are a heady combination - one which has even crept across the Atlantic into Appalachia.
Being half-Scots myself, I've always been highly sceptical about the "Celtic" thing, and the way it is used in a racist context: "We Scots/Welsh were here before you ENGLISH..."
The book, The Atlantic Celts looks like a fascinating read...
MILLIONS of people around the world think of themselves as Celtic and believe that their remote ancestors in the British Isles were Celts too. But many British prehistorians now argue that the idea that the pre-Roman peoples of the isles were Celts is misleading and probably just wrong. Why?
One fundamental, startling reason, is that no-one in Britain or Ireland called themselves "Celts" before 1700. Our earliest evidence for the identities of these peoples - the 2,000-year-old writings of their Greco-Roman neighbours - records Celts only on the continent, most notably the Gauls of modern France. The inhabitants of the isles were already called "British" and "Irish", and these were distinguished from the continental "Celts".
So where did the idea of insular Celts, ancient and modern, come from? It appears in the 18th century. "Celtic" came into use in the context of the isles as the result of the work of a pioneering linguist, the Welshman Edward Lhwyd, who demonstrated that Scots and Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton and related languages were also related to the extinct tongue of the ancient Gauls. He chose to call this family of dead and living languages "Celtic". Soon it was being used as an ethnic label for living peoples, and was applied to ancient monuments too. It became fixed in popular consciousness with remarkable speed. A century later, in "Rob Roy" Sir Walter Scott could refer to an 18th-century Highlander as a Celt without elaborating; his readers knew what he meant. By then, modern Celticness, and an ancient Celtic past, were part of agreed popular history. It has come to be believed that the Celtic ancestors were invaders from the continent.
I believe that the rapid uptake of belief in Celtic identity, and Ancient Celtic roots, was driven by the perception among Welsh, Scots and Irish that their several identities were in danger of being swamped by the new English-dominated superstate. Celticism provided an alternative, shared, non-English identity. Celtic identity, then, and British identity, are twins, both initially political creations of the 18th century. This in itself is nothing very surprising: every such identity is created at some time, for good contemporary reasons. Scottish and English identities also have such histories, but can be traced back much further. It is also almost universal for ethnic or national identities to claim roots in the distant past, which may be authentic or may be exaggerated, or spurious; it is an important way of legitimating our sense of self, and our claims to our place in the world.
Archaeology was a late addition to all this, only really developing in the later 19th century. As early discoveries were made, they were interpreted according to the already established Celtic model. Many seemed to fit it well: Britain, Ireland and Gaul all have hill-forts, and some magnificent ancient metalwork decorated in similar, exquisite patterns. But more recent research has probed much deeper into the Iron Age past and has found not evidence for Iron Age Celtic invasion, but basic continuity from earlier prehistory; these peoples were, mostly, already here.
Also, the evidence for types of houses, settlements, farming and economy, the way people lived, the things they made and used, and the ways in which they disposed of their dead, are not uniform and often not even very similar. There seem to have been many different peoples living in Britain, probably with a multiplicity of identities. It is implausible that they all thought of themselves as sharing common Britishness, let alone a wider Celticity.
The idea of overarching identities linking vast areas appeared briefly with the Romans, and more recently with the quite new ideas of Britishness, pan-Celticness and now, European integration. It is up to the peoples of the present to decide whether they wish to establish a Celtic Union, or a United States of Europe. But projecting Celtic identity on to the ancient peoples of the Britain may, ironically, be to rob them of their many, diverse, real self-identities.
However, anti-Englishness seems, in some quarters, to be acceptable. Northern Ireland-style sectarianism has often been described as "Scotland's Secret Shame" - but others now see anti-Englishness as a much bigger problem there. (Have a look at this page, and some of the posts - especially no. 109). The label "Celtic" can be one way that English people are alienated and branded as outsiders. Politics, nationalism and romantic nonsense are a heady combination - one which has even crept across the Atlantic into Appalachia.
Being half-Scots myself, I've always been highly sceptical about the "Celtic" thing, and the way it is used in a racist context: "We Scots/Welsh were here before you ENGLISH..."
The book, The Atlantic Celts looks like a fascinating read...
MILLIONS of people around the world think of themselves as Celtic and believe that their remote ancestors in the British Isles were Celts too. But many British prehistorians now argue that the idea that the pre-Roman peoples of the isles were Celts is misleading and probably just wrong. Why?
One fundamental, startling reason, is that no-one in Britain or Ireland called themselves "Celts" before 1700. Our earliest evidence for the identities of these peoples - the 2,000-year-old writings of their Greco-Roman neighbours - records Celts only on the continent, most notably the Gauls of modern France. The inhabitants of the isles were already called "British" and "Irish", and these were distinguished from the continental "Celts".
So where did the idea of insular Celts, ancient and modern, come from? It appears in the 18th century. "Celtic" came into use in the context of the isles as the result of the work of a pioneering linguist, the Welshman Edward Lhwyd, who demonstrated that Scots and Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton and related languages were also related to the extinct tongue of the ancient Gauls. He chose to call this family of dead and living languages "Celtic". Soon it was being used as an ethnic label for living peoples, and was applied to ancient monuments too. It became fixed in popular consciousness with remarkable speed. A century later, in "Rob Roy" Sir Walter Scott could refer to an 18th-century Highlander as a Celt without elaborating; his readers knew what he meant. By then, modern Celticness, and an ancient Celtic past, were part of agreed popular history. It has come to be believed that the Celtic ancestors were invaders from the continent.
I believe that the rapid uptake of belief in Celtic identity, and Ancient Celtic roots, was driven by the perception among Welsh, Scots and Irish that their several identities were in danger of being swamped by the new English-dominated superstate. Celticism provided an alternative, shared, non-English identity. Celtic identity, then, and British identity, are twins, both initially political creations of the 18th century. This in itself is nothing very surprising: every such identity is created at some time, for good contemporary reasons. Scottish and English identities also have such histories, but can be traced back much further. It is also almost universal for ethnic or national identities to claim roots in the distant past, which may be authentic or may be exaggerated, or spurious; it is an important way of legitimating our sense of self, and our claims to our place in the world.
Archaeology was a late addition to all this, only really developing in the later 19th century. As early discoveries were made, they were interpreted according to the already established Celtic model. Many seemed to fit it well: Britain, Ireland and Gaul all have hill-forts, and some magnificent ancient metalwork decorated in similar, exquisite patterns. But more recent research has probed much deeper into the Iron Age past and has found not evidence for Iron Age Celtic invasion, but basic continuity from earlier prehistory; these peoples were, mostly, already here.
Also, the evidence for types of houses, settlements, farming and economy, the way people lived, the things they made and used, and the ways in which they disposed of their dead, are not uniform and often not even very similar. There seem to have been many different peoples living in Britain, probably with a multiplicity of identities. It is implausible that they all thought of themselves as sharing common Britishness, let alone a wider Celticity.
The idea of overarching identities linking vast areas appeared briefly with the Romans, and more recently with the quite new ideas of Britishness, pan-Celticness and now, European integration. It is up to the peoples of the present to decide whether they wish to establish a Celtic Union, or a United States of Europe. But projecting Celtic identity on to the ancient peoples of the Britain may, ironically, be to rob them of their many, diverse, real self-identities.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Times Online - A Mission To Misinform The People Of England About Devolution - Bill Pickering As An Example...
Is Times Online, in the wake of its recent Populus Poll on devolution, and its shrieks about how successful devolution has been for Scotland, and how everybody supports it, being rather biased in its comments threads?
Comments published seem very few, and a deluded Scot often seems to be allowed the last word.
Take this:
"Dave, I'm afraid you're just plain wrong - the UK Government's own figures show that Scotland is a net contributor to the Union.
Click on the red text for the article.
And so it should be "controversial" - some of the oil and gas is England's.
The Tax Payers' Alliance found:
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
Click on red text for more.
And why should Scotland claim any of the oil for itself? This is supposed to be a "union" - surely resources are supposed to be SHARED?
And what's this "superior grant" Mr Pickford refers to? Scotland benefits from the Barnett Formula, whatever varying levels of public spending across England, England does not.
Comments published seem very few, and a deluded Scot often seems to be allowed the last word.
Take this:
"Dave, I'm afraid you're just plain wrong - the UK Government's own figures show that Scotland is a net contributor to the Union.
Bill Pickford, Arisaig, Scotland"
Click on the red text to go to the Times article and the comments thread.
From The Guardian:
Click on the red text for the article.
And so it should be "controversial" - some of the oil and gas is England's.
The Tax Payers' Alliance found:
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
Click on red text for more.
And why should Scotland claim any of the oil for itself? This is supposed to be a "union" - surely resources are supposed to be SHARED?
And what's this "superior grant" Mr Pickford refers to? Scotland benefits from the Barnett Formula, whatever varying levels of public spending across England, England does not.
But Bill Pickford clearly does not know that. And yet The Times allows this man the final word in the comments thread.
And as for "English regions" - what the heck?!!
Perhaps I'm being a little hasty. But several people, including myself, have contributed to this comments thread to correct Mr Pickering. And the comments have, so far, been unpublished. Not even one of them has appeared.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
CEP Press Release: CEP: MPs resorting to the Nuremberg war trials defence
‘If ever there was a moment when we really could do with England starting again just like Scotland with its own parliament, and shedding all the inanities, the vanities and the corrupt practices of both past and present in the way we are governed, it is now.’ That was the message put to all CEP blog readers by Gareth Young, Brighton member of the Campaign and co-editor of its website http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/blog/
‘If a British politician has ever told you that the reason that they don’t want an English parliament is because it would mean ‘an extra layer of politicians’ and ‘extra cost’, then now you know the real reason why. They don’t want an English Parliament because it will drive their Westminster gravy train up against the buffers. We have seen how Scotland, the moment it got its own parliament, free from the tentacles of Westminster and its centuries of corrupt practice, established the clearest of guidelines and rules for their MSPs. The moment two of its members were found to have broken its rules, they were made to resign. Here, we have scores of Cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers, junior cabinet ministers and backbenches milking the system which they and their colleagues past and present set up; and to date not one single resignation. They have preached ‘Britishness’ and British democracy but have undermined the concept through greed. They are money-grubbers feather-bedding their lifestyles. They have no claim to govern England. England needs a clean sheet to start again.’
‘Their argument ‘I complied with the rules’ is in essence the notorious Nuremberg Defence,’ Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit has added to Gareth’s message. ‘Not of course in scale. Of course not’. Yet legalistically and morally in essence the same. The war criminals argued in Nuremberg that they obeyed the law; here MPs argue they have complied with the rules. There is no conceptual difference. In Nuremberg exposure of wrongdoing was followed by retribution. There is no retribution whatsoever in this case. And these MPspr expect to get away with it all just by ‘apologising’ and saying it will be enough to change the rules. Not at all. They so argue because they want to hang on to monies which in the ‘court of public opinion’ they unfairly obtained. There has to be retribution. Either MPs should pay back the monies they took from the public purse, or they should face prosecution for breaking the law if, for example, they have not paid capital gains tax where it was owed. Or both. There is no gainsaying it any longer. England needs its own parliament where it can start again, with a clean sheet, with new men and women, bound by new rules, this time in this modern age subject to the full force of freedom of information legislation, transparent and translucent.’
‘If a British politician has ever told you that the reason that they don’t want an English parliament is because it would mean ‘an extra layer of politicians’ and ‘extra cost’, then now you know the real reason why. They don’t want an English Parliament because it will drive their Westminster gravy train up against the buffers. We have seen how Scotland, the moment it got its own parliament, free from the tentacles of Westminster and its centuries of corrupt practice, established the clearest of guidelines and rules for their MSPs. The moment two of its members were found to have broken its rules, they were made to resign. Here, we have scores of Cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers, junior cabinet ministers and backbenches milking the system which they and their colleagues past and present set up; and to date not one single resignation. They have preached ‘Britishness’ and British democracy but have undermined the concept through greed. They are money-grubbers feather-bedding their lifestyles. They have no claim to govern England. England needs a clean sheet to start again.’
‘Their argument ‘I complied with the rules’ is in essence the notorious Nuremberg Defence,’ Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit has added to Gareth’s message. ‘Not of course in scale. Of course not’. Yet legalistically and morally in essence the same. The war criminals argued in Nuremberg that they obeyed the law; here MPs argue they have complied with the rules. There is no conceptual difference. In Nuremberg exposure of wrongdoing was followed by retribution. There is no retribution whatsoever in this case. And these MPspr expect to get away with it all just by ‘apologising’ and saying it will be enough to change the rules. Not at all. They so argue because they want to hang on to monies which in the ‘court of public opinion’ they unfairly obtained. There has to be retribution. Either MPs should pay back the monies they took from the public purse, or they should face prosecution for breaking the law if, for example, they have not paid capital gains tax where it was owed. Or both. There is no gainsaying it any longer. England needs its own parliament where it can start again, with a clean sheet, with new men and women, bound by new rules, this time in this modern age subject to the full force of freedom of information legislation, transparent and translucent.’
Monday, May 11, 2009
David Cameron - Another Tyrant?
So says David Cameron, who has stood for public office and is an MP - and possible Prime Minister in waiting - making a statement as part of the MPs' Expenses scandal.
RULE?
But surely our elected representatives should serve? OK, there must be leadership, at times difficult decisions must be taken, but I don't like the emphase on RULING on Mr Cameron's part.
And from what I've heard of his refusal to listen to the calls of the people of England for democratic parity within the so-called United Kingdom, I am very concerned that Cameron really does intend to RULE - refusing to listen to our wishes, and simply letting the devolution inequalities continue.
Do politicians these days really see themselves as RULING the electorate? And not as our elected representatives?
Hopefully this attitude is not too widespread, but David Cameron obviously has more in common with Gordon Brown than what he terms "Scottish blood" in his veins.
All hail the New Ruler in waiting!
God Help England!
God Help Democracy!
The Campaign for an English Parliament welcomes the result of the Times Populus poll
A special Populus poll for The Times, to mark the tenth anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament indicated that in England and Wales 41 per cent support the idea of an English parliament.
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution.. And what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practises and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
Contact:
Scilla Cullen: Tel@ 01483 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution.. And what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practises and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
Contact:
Scilla Cullen: Tel@ 01483 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
David Cameron - Brown Nosing His Beloved Scotland Again - And Leaving England Out In The Cold...
God, how we dislike David Cameron. And Gordon Brown, of course. But here is Cameron "Scottish blood in my veins" again, this time in The Telegraph, promising to "rule Scotland with respect".
Not England, of course. Nope, we are "sour Little Englanders" - and the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and health apartheid matter not. Better a deprived England, better dead English people on the so-called NHS, than a broken so-called Union.
If Cameron gets in it will be because Nulabour has been so foul, it will certainly be no endorsement of the man or his political morals.
God, how we dislike David Cameron...
Not England, of course. Nope, we are "sour Little Englanders" - and the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and health apartheid matter not. Better a deprived England, better dead English people on the so-called NHS, than a broken so-called Union.
If Cameron gets in it will be because Nulabour has been so foul, it will certainly be no endorsement of the man or his political morals.
God, how we dislike David Cameron...
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Prodicus: 1982 and 1986 Are The 1970s...
As a sideline here, we like to point out instances of "'70s hype" as we call it. You know, times when interesting events of other decades are assigned to the 1970s, thus making it seem the most dramatic and colourful decade ever? This is a very common occurrence.
Today, we find Prodicus saying:
Would it be that Brenda Dean who, with her brothers and sisters in That Great Movement of Theirs, even today the Labour Party's paymaster, held the Byzantine British publishing industry firmly by the throat until, in the 1970s, Eddie Shah, Rupert Murdoch (and in the 80s, Margaret Thatcher) finally dragged it out of the mediaeval swamp and into the modern era and broke the lethal grip of the trade unions on the freedom of the British people?
Er, would that be the Eddie Shah who had a set-to with the unions in 1982, lasting seven months? Is 1982 the "1970s"!? Would that be the Eddie Shah who set up Today newspaper, Britain's first colour national daily, in March 1986? And would that be the Rupert Murdoch of 1986 Wapping fame? Is 1986 the "1970s"?
It's bizarre. it's rampant. the '70s are everywhere! Even when they shouldn't be! But it does help people not to mention '80s. Even when they really should.
UPDATE:
Prodicus has been in touch, telling us it's "a fair cop".
"What ho. A fair cop. My mistake on the chronology, now corrected. Mrs T passed the legislation and Shah and Murdoch used it. I was in publishing in the 70s (plenty of union s**t) and 80s (more off same during the breaking of the stranglehold). I still have the scars."
Understood, matey. The relevant legislation in the Shah scenario dated from 1980 and 1982. We make a bit of hobby of spotting instances of the 1980s being rewritten to the 1970s. You wouldn't believe how often it happens! From the BBC to the UK Press Association, proclaiming '80s events are '70s is absolutely piggin' RAMPANT!!
Today, we find Prodicus saying:
Would it be that Brenda Dean who, with her brothers and sisters in That Great Movement of Theirs, even today the Labour Party's paymaster, held the Byzantine British publishing industry firmly by the throat until, in the 1970s, Eddie Shah, Rupert Murdoch (and in the 80s, Margaret Thatcher) finally dragged it out of the mediaeval swamp and into the modern era and broke the lethal grip of the trade unions on the freedom of the British people?
Er, would that be the Eddie Shah who had a set-to with the unions in 1982, lasting seven months? Is 1982 the "1970s"!? Would that be the Eddie Shah who set up Today newspaper, Britain's first colour national daily, in March 1986? And would that be the Rupert Murdoch of 1986 Wapping fame? Is 1986 the "1970s"?
It's bizarre. it's rampant. the '70s are everywhere! Even when they shouldn't be! But it does help people not to mention '80s. Even when they really should.
UPDATE:
Prodicus has been in touch, telling us it's "a fair cop".
"What ho. A fair cop. My mistake on the chronology, now corrected. Mrs T passed the legislation and Shah and Murdoch used it. I was in publishing in the 70s (plenty of union s**t) and 80s (more off same during the breaking of the stranglehold). I still have the scars."
Understood, matey. The relevant legislation in the Shah scenario dated from 1980 and 1982. We make a bit of hobby of spotting instances of the 1980s being rewritten to the 1970s. You wouldn't believe how often it happens! From the BBC to the UK Press Association, proclaiming '80s events are '70s is absolutely piggin' RAMPANT!!
Friday, May 08, 2009
CEP: At last, an English MP speaks up for England and English jobs
'All classes of nuclear submarines in Britain will be based at Faslane on the Clyde in Scotland from 2017'. That was yesterday’s announcement from Bob Ainsworth Minister of State for Defence. As from 2017 there won’t be a single nuclear submarine based in any English naval port. There will be no jobs for an Englishman or woman in the maintenance and service of the British nuclear fleet as from 2017.The four Vanguard class submarines, which carry Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, are already based in Faslane. But from 2017 the remaining three nuclear-powered Trafalgar Class submarines, which do not carry nuclear warheads, will be moved from Devonport in Plymouth to Faslane. All the 10,000 plus jobs plus a similar number in the industries immediately supplying the bases will go from Devon to Scotland.
‘This is the most blatant act of discrimination against the English workforce yet carried out by this Scottish-led government in its eleven years of existence,’ David Wildgoose, Vice Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated in an emergency letter sent to all CEP members. ‘I urge every single member to write to their MP to object to this injustice. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is to be based at Faslane on the Clyde. This government is allowing the "Scottish agenda" to threaten English jobs. Gordon Brown is taking jobs away from the English workforce of Devonport to ingratiate himself with this own Scottish countrymen and women in the hope of preserving Scottish votes in the coming local and EU elections on June 4th and the General Election next year. It is downright wrong. It is downright discrimination.
‘I agree wholeheartedly with the condemnation of the decision made by Gary Streeter, the MP for Devon South West who has said: "I fear that the Devonport naval base is going to be allowed to wither on the vine over the next five to 10 years. It has had 320 years of history. We will have the amphibious fleet, but that is three boats and not much else. That is not going to replace all these frigates and submarines". I agree with Mr Streeter when he says he is particularly angry because English jobs were being jeopardised by an attempt to appease the Scots.
And Mr Wildgoose reminded the CEP membership that for the last two years, in one press release after another, the Campaign has been trying to bring public attention to this Scottish-led UK government’s policy of transferring naval shipyard employment from Devonport, Tyneside, Barrow on Furness and Appledore to the two Scottish yards of Faslane on the Clyde adjacent to the Glasgow heartland of the government’s support in Scotland and to Rosyth right next to Gordon Brown’s own constituency. ‘We must make our objections known to our English MPs. English MPs must stand up for the English workforce'.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit,
01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
‘This is the most blatant act of discrimination against the English workforce yet carried out by this Scottish-led government in its eleven years of existence,’ David Wildgoose, Vice Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated in an emergency letter sent to all CEP members. ‘I urge every single member to write to their MP to object to this injustice. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is to be based at Faslane on the Clyde. This government is allowing the "Scottish agenda" to threaten English jobs. Gordon Brown is taking jobs away from the English workforce of Devonport to ingratiate himself with this own Scottish countrymen and women in the hope of preserving Scottish votes in the coming local and EU elections on June 4th and the General Election next year. It is downright wrong. It is downright discrimination.
‘I agree wholeheartedly with the condemnation of the decision made by Gary Streeter, the MP for Devon South West who has said: "I fear that the Devonport naval base is going to be allowed to wither on the vine over the next five to 10 years. It has had 320 years of history. We will have the amphibious fleet, but that is three boats and not much else. That is not going to replace all these frigates and submarines". I agree with Mr Streeter when he says he is particularly angry because English jobs were being jeopardised by an attempt to appease the Scots.
And Mr Wildgoose reminded the CEP membership that for the last two years, in one press release after another, the Campaign has been trying to bring public attention to this Scottish-led UK government’s policy of transferring naval shipyard employment from Devonport, Tyneside, Barrow on Furness and Appledore to the two Scottish yards of Faslane on the Clyde adjacent to the Glasgow heartland of the government’s support in Scotland and to Rosyth right next to Gordon Brown’s own constituency. ‘We must make our objections known to our English MPs. English MPs must stand up for the English workforce'.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit,
01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Times Poll On Devolution Is Seriously Flawed And Highly Misleading...
The Times has carried out a survey on attitudes to Scottish devolution south and north of the border, and its headline trumpets:
And when you consider there are around 60 million people in England, as compared to around 5 million in Scotland...
But, apart from all this, the Times poll strikes us here at WENAP as another prime example of the media in England seeking to hide the facts about devolution - the headline suggests that everything in the garden is rosy, and as the media fails to inform people in England about the detrimental effects of devolution on its citizens, surely the poll is a complete and utter farce?
This particular quote from the Times reveals how absurdly ill-informed the majority of people are, thanks to the likes of the Times and the BBC:
It [the survey] found that 65% of people in Scotland and 73% in England and Wales believed relationships between the two countries have not changed since before devolution a decade ago.
And what about this? -
The Times newspaper survey found 70% of people north of the border and 70% in England and Wales thought devolution had been good for Scotland.
We believe that devolution has been good for Scotland - unfairly so - but that doesn't mean we support the current situation, and the Times headline states: 70% of Britons Support Devolution For Scotland. This is completely skewed and misleading.
Also, if the survey was about "relationships between the two countries" - our emphasis - meaning England and Scotland - why on earth were people in Wales surveyed on this point? What position are they in to judge?
Until the media in England opens up about the facts regarding devolution, then all such polls are a waste of time.
But, even taking that into account, we are surprised and gratified that 41% of those polled in England desire an English Parliament and 52% do not want Scots constituency MPs voting on English legislation.
Read the full Times report here.
70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests
Well, I hate to be a party pooper, but as 42% of those surveyed in England desire an English Parliament, and 52% believe that Scots constituency MPs should not be voting on English matters, the poll hardly suggests that everything in the garden is lovely. Also, consider the facts that only 911 people were surveyed in England and Wales (together) compared to 500 in Scotland - suggesting, as usual, that Scots' opinions are far more important than those from elsewhere in the UK.And when you consider there are around 60 million people in England, as compared to around 5 million in Scotland...
But, apart from all this, the Times poll strikes us here at WENAP as another prime example of the media in England seeking to hide the facts about devolution - the headline suggests that everything in the garden is rosy, and as the media fails to inform people in England about the detrimental effects of devolution on its citizens, surely the poll is a complete and utter farce?
This particular quote from the Times reveals how absurdly ill-informed the majority of people are, thanks to the likes of the Times and the BBC:
It [the survey] found that 65% of people in Scotland and 73% in England and Wales believed relationships between the two countries have not changed since before devolution a decade ago.
And what about this? -
The Times newspaper survey found 70% of people north of the border and 70% in England and Wales thought devolution had been good for Scotland.
We believe that devolution has been good for Scotland - unfairly so - but that doesn't mean we support the current situation, and the Times headline states: 70% of Britons Support Devolution For Scotland. This is completely skewed and misleading.
Also, if the survey was about "relationships between the two countries" - our emphasis - meaning England and Scotland - why on earth were people in Wales surveyed on this point? What position are they in to judge?
Until the media in England opens up about the facts regarding devolution, then all such polls are a waste of time.
But, even taking that into account, we are surprised and gratified that 41% of those polled in England desire an English Parliament and 52% do not want Scots constituency MPs voting on English legislation.
Read the full Times report here.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Press Association Report On England And Britain
A few weeks ago, we caught the UK Press Association deliberately mangling facts by misquoting a newspaper report. That was due to '70s hype, the strange affliction gripping so-called journalists, who will take a concrete fact about a past event occurring in, say, the 1980s or 1990s, and rewrite it as '70s, mangling the information from the original news source - and basically telling lies.
For instance, a one-off, out-of-the blue happening in the mid-1980s according to the original news source (and all other sources!) becomes a series of happenings in the '70s and '80s, when reported by the PA.
Today, the Press Association reports:
A Tory spokesman said: "The Labour party needs to drag itself into the 21st century and start apologising to the people of Scotland and Britain for the depth of the recession it's created."
Scotland AND Britain? But Scotland is Britain, Britain came into being because of the Union of England and Scotland.
Another bizarre Press Association mangling of fact? No, not in this case, we suspect. After all, there's no '70s hype involved.
For instance, a one-off, out-of-the blue happening in the mid-1980s according to the original news source (and all other sources!) becomes a series of happenings in the '70s and '80s, when reported by the PA.
Today, the Press Association reports:
A Tory spokesman said: "The Labour party needs to drag itself into the 21st century and start apologising to the people of Scotland and Britain for the depth of the recession it's created."
Scotland AND Britain? But Scotland is Britain, Britain came into being because of the Union of England and Scotland.
Another bizarre Press Association mangling of fact? No, not in this case, we suspect. After all, there's no '70s hype involved.
CEP: Open letter to the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution and the British Government from the campaign for an English Government
We read in the Times online of 28th April 2009 that radical plans to give the Scottish government control of up to half of the income tax raised north of the Border and most of the revenue from North Sea oil and gas are being considered by economists advising the Calman Commission.
We are told that the commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, was charged by the three main Unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative) to find ways that the existing devolution settlement can be made to work better for all parts of the UK. We must assume that all parts of the UK includes England but most of the gas fields are in English waters so who is to negotiate on England’s behalf? Who has the authority to ensure that the interests of the English taxpayers are protected? Indeed who speaks for England?
We are further told that the commission is set to back borrowing powers for Holyrood as one of its main recommendations when it reports later this year. While not explicitly stated, the inference from other reports is that the borrowing will be from the British Government the vast majority of whose funding comes from England. With the example of the toxic assets of the Scottish banks before us should not England be consulted before its people are touched for any loan? And what guarantee do the people of England have that such debts will be administered by those with the best interests of England at heart?
If Holyrood is to get most of the revenue from British North Sea oil and gas-will the Scottish government then take on most of the cost of the failure of the Scottish Banks or will the enormous national debt, taken on by the British Government on behalf of those banks, remain a millstone around the necks of the English taxpayer for a generation?
The Calman Commission had a remit largely specific to Scotland. In a united kingdom why does Scotland gets to debate about Scotland with a Scottish PM, Scottish Chancellor, Scottish Speaker, without reference to the rest of the Union? At least Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies to argue for their interests. England as usual, is left with nothing but the bill.
It is imperative that an English Assembly or Parliament is convened in order to protect the interests of the people of England who are currently unrepresented nationally in the British constitutional settlement.
Scilla Cullen
Chairman, the Campaign for an English Parliament
Contact:
Scilla Cullen.01439 833155
Email:
scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
We are told that the commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, was charged by the three main Unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative) to find ways that the existing devolution settlement can be made to work better for all parts of the UK. We must assume that all parts of the UK includes England but most of the gas fields are in English waters so who is to negotiate on England’s behalf? Who has the authority to ensure that the interests of the English taxpayers are protected? Indeed who speaks for England?
We are further told that the commission is set to back borrowing powers for Holyrood as one of its main recommendations when it reports later this year. While not explicitly stated, the inference from other reports is that the borrowing will be from the British Government the vast majority of whose funding comes from England. With the example of the toxic assets of the Scottish banks before us should not England be consulted before its people are touched for any loan? And what guarantee do the people of England have that such debts will be administered by those with the best interests of England at heart?
If Holyrood is to get most of the revenue from British North Sea oil and gas-will the Scottish government then take on most of the cost of the failure of the Scottish Banks or will the enormous national debt, taken on by the British Government on behalf of those banks, remain a millstone around the necks of the English taxpayer for a generation?
The Calman Commission had a remit largely specific to Scotland. In a united kingdom why does Scotland gets to debate about Scotland with a Scottish PM, Scottish Chancellor, Scottish Speaker, without reference to the rest of the Union? At least Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies to argue for their interests. England as usual, is left with nothing but the bill.
It is imperative that an English Assembly or Parliament is convened in order to protect the interests of the people of England who are currently unrepresented nationally in the British constitutional settlement.
Scilla Cullen
Chairman, the Campaign for an English Parliament
Contact:
Scilla Cullen.01439 833155
Email:
scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)