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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, Parliament was run by gentlemen. And things tended to be a great deal more bloody and turbulent for several centuries - not the place for 'ladies'. Very different times. But Parliament took representations from women very seriously - which is how we got the highly unfair 'Tender Years Doctrine'. All men had accountabilities women did not. It was about survival and accountability. Working class, voteless men had the accountabilities - like giving their lives and total financial responsibility for their families - which helped motivate their fight for male suffrage. It was only achieved after World War One. 

Millicent Fawcett knew that parliament was happy for LADIES to have the vote (with none of the accountabilities foisted on men) very early on. But this didn't happen because it would have meant a permanent Tory Government. Feminist underpinnings, Kristiina, dear? How pale, female and stale you are! And the suffragettes? With their bombings (harming working class voteless men) and their odious and huge support for the White Feather Campaign? Oh, PURLEASE! Try this: https://antifeministpraxis.com/2017/03/31/feminism-was-never-not-rotten/

I recommend you read the entire BBC article - no mention of the Barnett Formula (reviled by its own creator) and West Lothian Question, no mention of the fact that the UK Parliament discriminates against the largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) UK country (England) financially and democratically. No mention of the fake white Celtic myth, dating from 1707. No mention of the IRA killing innocent people. Shame on you, Kristiina. I'm sure you'll be welcome at the BBC for a very long time...

CEP: 2000 Labour Party delegates to applaud the negation of the English Democratic Tradition

2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.

Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.

The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.

'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.

'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.

Contact:

Michael Knowles

CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139

Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

CEP: England? No. Scotland? Yes. BBC bias strikes again

A season of programmes on Scotland's history and culture tells of the delight the BBC takes in the celebration of Scotland. It would never do the same for England.

'The default position for the BBC when it comes to anything to do with England is not to mention it, and certainly it is not to celebrate anything English if the BBC can possibly avoid it. Its default position with Scotland on the other hand is precisely the opposite. The BBC celebrates Scotland and everything Scottish at every opportunity.' That is the CEP's considered comment on the BBC's TV series of programmes 'This is Scotland' which starts this weekend.' in which the BBC will celebrate and examine aspects of Scottish culture, art, film-making, heritage, landscape and psyche.'. (BBC Press Release) .

'A Portrait Of Scotland discusses the artists and paintings that have reflected the changing face of Scotland since the Reformation, The Fighting Scots reviews the history of Scots in the British Army. Scotland On Screen celebrates classic movies and their Scottish locations, there is a programme on Touring Scotland, another on the cult of the Munros, and Michael Portillo chairing a discussion on the possibility of Scottish independence.The season also features documentaries on the legacy of Calvinism in Scotland, on Tweed, the fabric and industry, and on Balmoral, the Royal Family's most private residence and its links to Scottish traditions.

'Can anyone imagine the BBC running anything like that for England?' asks Scilla Cullen chairman in her Autumn message to Campaign membership. 'Just imagine the BBC doing a programme, for example, on Sandringham and the Royal Family's links to the English countryside. It would not as much as enter its head to run a programme on the history of English regiments in the British Army. For the BBC, as an unspoken but governing ideology, there isn't an England. There are Brits and there are the Scots and the Welsh, but there are no English as a distinct people in the same way. Every time he is on the Wimnbledon screen, Andy Murray is a Scot. Tim Henman was always and only a Brit. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, Cardiff the capital of Wales. But never once in all my lifetime have I heard the BBC ever talk of London as the capital of England, which it is.

'For the BBC there is the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's it. It officially organises itself into what it calls 'the Nations and the Regions', the nations being Scotland, Wales and NI and the regions being its divisions of England into such regions as the North West, the West Midlands etc which have no roots at all in England's history and culture.

'There is BBC Scotland, there is BBC Wales, there is BBC Northern Ireland. But in letter after letter from the BBC Head Office to the CEP, the firm statement is that they will not have a BBC England.

'Instead England is balkanised into a myriad of local stations: BBC Devon, BBC Manchester, BBC Lincolnshire and so on. 'England is too big to have its own BBC station like Scotland and Wales', the Head of the Dept. of 'Nations and Regions' writes to the CEP Media Unit. Yet there is a BBC World Service. Scotland, Wales and NI each has its own Trustee on the BBC Trust Board. England hasn't any. It has an Alison Hastings representing 'the regions'.

'This hostility to the idea of England as a distinct nation goes deep into the psyche of the British Establishment, of which the BBC is a major player culturally and politically,' writes Scilla Cullen. 'It regards the very idea of England as a threat to the narrow Establishment notion of Britishness, dominant but narrow. The BBC is consciously hostile. It is holding back the growth and enjoyment of Englishness, which is as much a direct consequence of the 1998 Devolution legislation as is the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Over the last eleven years the English people have become aware of themselves again as a distinct nation, very aware that they have been deprived of self rule which has been granted to Scotland and Wales, whose MPs can still make legislation for England's internal affairs and have obtained immense benefits for their countries which are denied to England.

'The BBC will have to dragged kicking and screaming into running a season of programmes on England as a distinct nation with its own distinct culture and history. If and when that happens, which in due course it will, it will mean that after 300 years of being denied it has its own identity, the British Establishment has finally accepted the fact that the United Kingdom can change and still exist.

contact:

Mrs Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman Tel: 01438 833155

Email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com

Lord Richard Of Ammanford And The Barnett Formula Lords Report - Is The Campaign For An English Parliament On Holiday?

From Wales Online:

Lord Richard, who led a review into the Assembly’s powers in 2003-04, is not a man to mince his words. Barnett has given Scotland and England more than they need and Wales and Northern Ireland too little.

Lord Richard of Ammanford may not be a man to "mince his words" - but he is a man to tell lies. Any clear headed, unbiased assessment of the Barnett Formula reveals that it is most unfair to England, indeed, its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, states that is so (here).

England gets the least and it shows.

That's why they have free NHS prescriptions for everybody, including the very rich, in Wales.

But where is the Campaign For An English Parliament's response to Lord Ammanford's statement? Have we missed something?

CEP Press Release: Racist? Illegal? Not when it concerns Scotland

RACIST? ILLEGAL? NOT WHEN IT CONCERNS SCOTLAND.

A VOICE FOR SCOTLAND? OF COURSE -A SECRETARY OF STATE AND A WHOLE PARLIAMENT.

A VOICE FOR ENGLAND? NONE AT ALL.

JOBS FOR SCOTLAND? PERFECTLY LEGAL.

JOBS FOR ENGLAND? ILLEGAL AND RACIST.

‘The past week has highlighted how differently Scotland and England are treated’, said Michael Knowles member of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament. ‘A leaked memo from shipbuilders BVT revealed the possibility of large-scale redundancies on the Clyde, affecting both its Glasgow shipyards, Scotstoun and Govan (but, interestingly, not Rosyth in Fifeshire which borders on the constituency of Gordon Brown). Immediately both the UK Scottish Department and the Scottish Parliament swung into action. ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Clyde,’ announced Jim Murphy Scotland’s Secretary of State. ‘The order book is full. Jobs are guaranteed for at least the next 7 years. We have a commitment to the Clyde, we’re here for the long-term.’ And SNP MSP for Govan, Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister in the Scottish parliament waded in behind. ‘We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any Scottish shipyard.’

‘Contrast all that with how England is dealt with. The shipyards of Devonport, Portsmouth, Appledore, the Medway, Camel Lairds in Birkenhead, the Tyne and Barrow in Furness, they have all either been reduced or closed, even on occasion work taken from them and transferred to the Clyde, and not one single UK minister even speaks out. There is no voice for England, there is no minister for England, there is no parliament for England. England simply has no recognition. None whatsoever. It’s lost somewhere in the bowels of the UK state.

‘When English workers demonstrated recently for British jobs for British workers at the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire, they were told that their demand was illegal. Even racist. But Scottish law demands that in Scotland preference is given to any workers living within 40 miles of a site. The Scottish Parliament exists for no other purpose except to get what is best for Scotland. The legislation for the Welsh Assembly even states that the whole point of the Assembly is to ‘focus on the concerns of the Welsh nation’

‘The CEP welcomes anything that can give the people of Scotland and Wales the best of everything. All it asks is that the same is done for the people of England. A voice for England. A First Minister for England. A Parliament for England. In other words, Equality within the Union for England. How refreshing it would be to hear a First Minister for England announcing in the face of the threat of job cuts: ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Tyne or Appledore or Devonport or Barrow…We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any English shipyard.’. The deep truth is that no UK minister is happy to employ the word ‘English’. That is the one taboo in UK politics that has still to be broken.

CEP: Gordon Brown puts Scotland first, not Britain

"On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament last Wednesday July 1st Gordon Brown published an article in the Scottish Daily Record," stated Philippa Cullen of Lower Froyle in Hampshire in her end-of-month message to CEP members in the county.

"It reeked with Scottish nationalism. Coming from a British Prime Minister who should put Britain first and speak equally of each nation of Britain it was outrageous. Yet it was totally consistent with his written pledge of March 31st 1989 when as 'one of the leaders of Labour's campaign for devolution' he signed the Scottish Claim of Right vowing 'to make the interests of the Scottish people paramount in everything he said and did'. His government, he says, 'has never stopped focusing on delivering for the Scottish people'.

"In the article he celebrates 'Scotland’s rich and vibrant political history'. He talks of 'the bravery and brilliance of Scots in uniform', no mention of the English who make up the vast bulk of the British Army, Navy and Air Force. He describes how he 'had campaigned for a fairer future for Scotland' and how he had made policy that 'pays off for the Scots. Our decision to build two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers at shipyards including Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth has secured thousands of jobs in Scotland and protected Scots' hard-earned savings'. He omits to mention that the preservation of shipbuilding jobs in Scotland had been at the deliberate expense of England's shipyards, particularly Devonport and Tyneside.

"He exhibits breathtaking effrontery by saying that 'the Scottish people rightly felt frustrated in recent decades as unpopular decisions were made on health, education and policing', while knowing full well that his fellow Scottish Labour MPs in the UK Parliament have taken away English MPs' choice on foundation hospitals and university tuition fees by voting against them and imposing these against English wishes.

"Unashamedly he boasts that the Scots can enjoy 'influencing decisions in Westminster' while making no mention of the West Lothian Question. He trumpets on about 'Scottish solutions to Scottish issues on things such as free personal care for the elderly, tuition fees, free travel for the elderly and prescription charges', as if England doesn't have exactly the same issues; and as if he is unaware, which he most definitely is not, that in terms of tax revenue it is the English taxpayer who pays for the extra benefits the Scots now enjoy. In terms of tax revenue Scotland is unable to pay its own way. 'The Union Government invests billions of pounds in Scotland beyond the Scottish Parliament’s £35 billion annual budget' he writes. What he does not write is that 90% of the Union Government's revenue comes the English taxpayer.

Because of devolution, Brown writes, 'Scots could finally start taking more control of our daily lives'. Note his use of the word 'our'. He smugly says "For the first time in 300 years, Scotland once again had its own parliament’. There is no fiercer opponent of England having its own parliament and the English having 'control of their daily lives'. than him; and he is using all the instruments of the British state to try to make sure it never happens. He boasts of 'hosting a working dinner in my home in Fife for leaders from all the Holyrood parties'. Would he ever as much as think of getting representatives of the people of England together 'to focus on delivering for the English people'?

As Brown so rightly says in the article, more truthfully than he realizes: 'In short, devolution gives Scotland the best of both worlds'

CEP: GORDON BROWN’S ‘PROGRAMME FOR ‘BRITAIN’ DEFIES AND DENIES THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ENGLISH NOTION OF DEMOCRACY.

English democracy is representative democracy. The people who make the laws that govern a country must represent the people they govern and be answerable to them. On that basic principle England’s Parliament was founded almost 800 years ago in 1253. That same principle lies at the heart of English Common Law and the jury system. When Scotland united with England with the Act of Union in 1707, it accepted the English way of democratic government.

‘But the ‘Programme for ‘Britain’ announced yesterday by Gordon Brown in England’s ancient House of Commons is nothing less than outright repudiation of England’s way of democracy’. That is the declaration of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The main proposals of the Programme cover housing, health and education. Not one of them will apply to Scotland because Scotland through its parliament is self-ruling in all matters of housing, health and education. In these three important areas of government Brown is proposing legislation for England only.

Yet Brown is MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire. He does not represent one inch of England’s territory and not one single English voter. And he is not answerable in any election to any English man or woman. He is the principal legislator for England, yet he does not represent England in any of these very important matters and he is not accountable to any English person.

What is more, when at next year’s General Election he stands for re-election in Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, because he is not a member of the Scottish Parliament, he is not answerable even to his own electorate for any matter concerning housing, health and education. Our system of government has become twisted and deformed.

In terms of what is most basic to the very meaning of English democracy, to have an MP representing a Scottish constituency making legislation for England in matters on which he was not elected by and is not accountable to any electorate is not just wrong, it is politically and constitutionally perverse.

In the statement of the ‘Constitution Unit’ to the House of Commons Justice Committee in November 2007, what is ‘closest to a complete answer’ to this situation created by the nature of the 1998 devolution legislation ‘is an English Parliament?’

Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
Tel: 01260 271139

Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

CEP: The UK establishment denies constitutional justice to England

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

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.’

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

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

CEP challenges Ed Miliband's opposition to devolution for England with a call for a national conversation for England

Writing for the new ‘Labour Space’ website Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has come out with strangely contradictory opinions on devolution. On the one hand he has endorsed devolution for Scotland and Wales because, he says, ‘devolution provides democratic accountability for decisions in Scotland and Wales which used to be made centrally’ On the other, when it comes to England he demands that decisions should still be made ‘centrally’ by UK Parliament MPs like himself. ‘He is still very Establishment,’ says Gareth Young of the CEP, ‘unable to live with a UK that is rapidly changing before his very eyes. He’s a captive of yesterday still, there is a lack of political imagination. The world has moved on.’

Replying to Miliband on the same Labour Party website Gareth Young put it to him straight. ‘You say you do not see a parliament for England as the answer to the lack of democratic accountability which is probably the main constitutional and political problem England is now experiencing; and your Labour colleague Jack Straw very predictably has joined you stating that ‘I am wholly opposed to an English parliament.’. Fair enough. But the two of you – you might not quite see this- are just two people out of 50 million English men and women. Just two. No more.

‘What are the facts about public opinion on this matter? Your government’s Ministry of Justice, headed by Jack Straw, has never commissioned any research into the level of support for an English parliament or English votes on English Laws. And by never, I mean never; not once, not ever.

‘However, all the following polls have found a majority in favour of an English dimension to government, whether it is an English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws, English independence or a combination of the three: ICM for the Telegraph December 2007, ICM for the Campaign for an English Parliament April 2007, YouGov for the Sunday Times April 2007, BBC Newsnight Poll January 2007, Daily Mail ICM Poll January 2007, ICM for the Sunday Telegraph November 2006, IPSOS MORI for the English Constitutional Convention June 2006 and YouGov for the English Democrats Feb 2004.There can be doubt that what has galvanised the outcomes of those polls, which you should have the openness of mind to consult, is the degree to which the people of England resent with justifiable bitterness the way in which devolution has benefited the Scots and the Welsh while doing nothing whatsover for them.

‘Mr Milband, it all amounts to evidence of public opinion that you and your government colleagues should not ignore. You are happy to declare support for democratic accountability for Scotland and Wales.yet oppose it for England. The outcome of the coming General Election might well give you cause to change your mind. We call on you to support a National Conversation on England; we call on you to come out from the Westminster bubble and give a hearing to the people of England'

Contacts:

Gareth Young -

http://ourengland.labourspace.com - joint co-ordinator the CEP website www.thecep.org.uk

Email: gpy1973@yahoo.co.uk

CEP: Protection Alive, Well And Legal In Scotland

Protectionism is alive and well and legal in Scotland, but denounced as xenophobic and illegal in England.

‘If ever proof was needed that this Government under Gordon Brown, the MP for Scotland’s Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, operates double standards in Scotland’s favour, one of his own Scottish Labour MPs has provided it.’ This information has been revealed in the columns of The Scotsman newspaper. Michael Connarty, the Labour MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk accused the English protesting against their exclusion from applying for jobs at the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire of ‘xenophobia and protectionism’. Yet at the same time in that newspaper he made the stunning revelation that there are "long-standing working practices in Scotland that allow workers living within 40 miles of a plant to be prioritised for work”.

‘What a display of double standards!” Michael Knowles speaking for the CEP has declared. ‘The number of Portuguese or Italian workers who meet the specified criteria is rather limited to say the very least. The brutal undeniable fact is that they were brought to England, they are being housed in floating hotels by their employment agents and it is can only be suspected therefore that they got their jobs, not on merit, but because they are prepared to accept a rate of pay below Englsh, even local Lincolnshire, rates.

‘How can a Labour Prime Minister allow a situation where the jobs of his own Scottish countrymen and women are protected against foreign competition while those of the people of England are not? How can the Leader of the Conservative Party stand up in Parliament at PMQT and denounce protectionism and say not a word in support of the right of English workers to apply for work in their own country against unfair foreign competition while workers in Scotland operate regulations which protect them from foreign competition?

‘The only conclusion to draw from the revelations made by Mr Connarty is that there is one law for the Scottish workforce in the United Kingdom and another law for the English workforce. As this Campaign asks again and again: Who is there in the UK Parliament who speaks up for England?

Contacts

Michael Knowles. CEP Media Unit. Tel@ 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

Songs Of Praise: The BBC And Aled Jones - More Anti-English Bias

Scilla Cullen, of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has noted yet another example of anti-English bias on the BBC. You know, the English are to be referred to as "British", the Scots and Welsh by name? As with the outrageous anti-English The Surgery feature, on BBC Radio 1, this latest outrage involves a Welshman called Aled - this time the 1980s choir boy Aled Jones. Scilla has written to the BBC.

Songs of Praise 18th January 2009

The Welshman Aled Jones refers to the ENGLISH heroine Grace Darling as “one of Britain’s best loved heroines”. You can be sure that if she had been Welsh he and the BBC would have made sure that her origins were well advertised. However because she was English you deny her identity. Shame on you. You always ignore your own editorial instructions to differentiate between English and British when that would confer an English identity on a hero or heroine or an English achievement. This bias is institutional. You have a series on Scottish history but those on English history are always called British.

Scilla Cullen
Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament

The BBC's anti-English/anti-England bias is getting beyond on a joke. Remember all their on-line stuff about the Olympics and how the English were always referred to as "British" and the Scots and Welsh as Scots and Welsh? Recall it here.

CEP Press Release: The Strange Case of David Cameron's Preferential Treatment Of Scotland At England's Expense

It may be because he has family in Scotland and a Scottish name. Or it may be because he is still hoping against hope and against all predictions that somehow he can hold on to the one seat the Conservative Party has in Scotland in Dumfrieshire and be able to claim, if he does become Prime Minister, that he represents the whole of the UK. ‘Whatever is the reason, David Cameron’s latest bulletin about what he intends to do if he gets into 10 Downing Street reveals a staggering disregard for justice for England and an equally amazing intention to give Scotland very preferential treatment’.

That is the response of the CEP to Cameron’s disclosure to the Financial Times (Tuesday 13th January) that he intends to cuts the number of MPs by 10% ‘in the interests of efficiency. He specifies that to meet that target he will reduce the number of English seats from between 40 and 50 and Welsh seats by about 10. But at the same time he will let Scotland keep every seat it has, and that despite the fact that Scotland is already over-represented in the House of Commons in comparison to England. Scotland has 59 MPs in Westminster (in addition of course to another 129 MPs in the Scottish Parliament). That number of 59 would need to be reduced to 53 to bring the two countries into line in terms of MPs per constituents. Nor is that all. The Isle of Wight, Britain's biggest constituency, has an electorate of 108,253 while Na h-Eileanan an Iar, formerly known as the Western Isles, is the smallest constituency in Britain with an electorate of 21,884.

‘Such blatant favouritism in favour of Scotland should be not allowed’ the CEP has stated in response to Cameron’s announcement. ‘We hope that if he gets into No 10 and approaches the Electoral Commission with his proposal, they will throw it out. Whatever changes in electoral representation are needed, and doubtless some are, they should be made on the basis of equal treatment of each of the three nations of this island. Scotland should not continue to be favoured above England. Scotland enjoys the Barnett Formula which gives each Scot £1600 more health and education expenditure than anyone in England. It has the highest degree of devolution, while England has none at all. It has free university education, free prescriptions, a freeze on council tax, free personal care for the elderly, free hospital parking, and above all its own parliament with 129 MSPs elected just to focus on Scotland’s needs and development alone. None of any of that exists in England. And 80% of the cost of all of it is paid for by the English taxpayer. The injustice is grotesque. Cameron should think to represent England as earnestly as Scotland if and when he becomes PM’. .

Contacts:

Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit

Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

CEP: Promoting England's Farming Economy

CEP Organiser for the East Riding of Yorkshire, Della Petch, has written to Hilary Benn, Minister at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggesting that leading supermarkets could encourage shoppers to buy English produce by using a 'bonus points' system similar to the one already operated successfully by retailers in Ireland promoting local products. Since the 1998 Devolution legislation the DEFRA Minister’s responsibilities are for England only.

Shoppers in Irish supermarkets are alerted to local produce by shamrock symbols on supermarket shelves, which then also appear on till receipts. These products can often earn bonus points through supermarket loyalty schemes. Della Petch’s suggestion is that English produce could be similarly 'flagged up' on till receipts with a small English flag, which could also earn bonus points where loyalty schemes exist.

She has now written to Cabinet Member Hilary Benn to ask him to raise the idea with England’s major retailers. The UK Government has already established working relations with the major supermarkets to promote environmentally friendly practices such as reducing carrier bag use.

Commenting Della said:

"Earning bonus points for buying local could be an excellent way to boost England’s economy and cut down on unnecessary food-miles this winter.

"There are already a number of labelling initiatives run by the supermarkets and producer groups, and introducing a further incentive to buy local could be a shot in the arm for England’s farmers.

"Just like the shamrock in Ireland, the English flag on the shelves and then on the till receipt would help to emphasise how easy and important it is to buy decent local produce, and reward shoppers in the process.

"I have written to the Cabinet Secretary asking him to look at the idea in more detail, and to discuss it at his next meeting with the major supermarkets.

"We need to make full use of England’s magnificent larder if we are to promote healthy eating, reduce pollution from transporting food, and boost the economy during the current downturn.

"A simple scheme like this could make all the difference."

Contacts:

Della Petch, email: dg.petch@btinternet.com

Michael Knowles, email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk Tel: 01260 271139

Campaign For An English Parliament: UK Establishment Prejudice against England, typified by George Monbiot, is blighting England’s Future

‘England, the land of my birth. means nothing to me.’

That is the declaration made by George Monbiot a very well-known campaigning environmentalist writing in the Guardian newspaper Tuesday December 30th 2008. It is as good an illustration anyone can get of the prejudice England experiences from the UK Establishment as England slowly but surely grapples with the realities and implications of the 1998 Devolution legislation which gave Scotland and Wales their own parliament but did nothing, nothing at all, for England. That legislation gave constitutional and political recognition to the distinct nationhood and national identities both of Scotland and Wales. It gave them self-rule thorugh having their own parliaments. But not England. Unlike them politically and constitutionally England does not exist; and that is because of the attitude towards England of the UK cultural and political Establishment to which George Monbiot belongs

It is an Establishment that is not at ease with England, with the idea of England as a nation, with Englishness and English identity. The great majority of them are English of course, but it is the sort of English who are itchy and unhappy in their English skin. The mere mention of England brings them out in all sorts of strange political and cultural goose-pimples. They duck and dive to avoid anything that might seem like a normal human attachment which love of one’s country is. They just cannot be English in the same relaxed and easy way a Scot is Scottish or the Welsh are Welsh. George Orwell recognised the type over 60 years ago. “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. (The Lion and the Unicorn).

‘England means nothing to me’ states George Monbiot. Yet if anyone has benefited from the very best England has to offer it is him. In every possible respect England made him. He was brought up in a big country house in affluent Henley with a garden that backed on to Peppard Common. His father was the managing director of Associated Biscuits Ltd., Chairman of Campbells Soups UK and a deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. His mother is the daughter of a Conservative MP for an English seat. Both parents were leading members of the Oxford Conservative Party. He was sent to board at Stowe public school, he got a scholarship into Brazenose College, Oxford. His first job on leaving Oxford University was with the BBC. He is now a regular columnist with the Guardian newspaper, founded in England, printed and published in England, read overwhelmingly in England. Two years ago he moved to Wales and now boasts that he feels ‘an irrational impulse in supporting Wales in rugby, football and in all its competing claims against other nations’. Yet he says ‘I despise nationalism’ -obviously in the same way as on environmental grounds he condemned travelling to America by plane which he does, and to Australia too.

Unlike Wales, and even more so Scotland, England has no political or constitutional existence or recognition or self-rule. The people of England pay for prescriptions and hospital parking charges, which the Welsh do not. Unlike the Scots their students pay university tuition fees and their elderly people for personal care. They do not get free eye tests, their council tax has not been frozen. And each Scottish and Welsh man, woman and child receives £1600 more per year from the UK government than any English man, woman and child for education, health care and social services.

‘It is because of the indifference and hostility of such UK Establishment figures towards England as George Monbiot, because of their lack of concern for it, that its people are so discriminated against,’ Michael Knowles, media spokesman for the Campaign for an English Parliament, has said in his New Year message to CEP members. ‘Yet England made people like Monbiot. England gave them every advantage they now have. Culturally and politically they are its ruling class, a position they exercise to the full. In 2009 we must campaign even harder against them and their attitude to get for England what the UK has given to Scotland and Wales. If the United Kingdom is to continue, then each of its constituent nations should stand in the same relationship to both the Union and to each other’


Contacts:

Michael Knowles Head of CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

Scilla Cullen, CEP Chairman. Tel: 01438 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk

2009 - The End Of England?

Happy New Year, folks, though as the CEP News Blog reminds us, 2009 sees Westminster still very much occupied by political enemies of England and England in more danger than ever of being abolished forever.

We need an end to health apartheid and the evil works of the Primary Care Trusts and "Supporting People" organisation in England.

We need a proper, representative national Government.

We need an end to the arrogant Scottish Raj.

We need an end to enforced regionalisation. The internal government of England should be decided only by MPs representing the people of England.

We need an end to the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question.

Here's to 2009, folks.

Let's keep up the fight for justice and equality for England and all its people.

Campaign For An English Parliament: The Union Works Against England's Sovereignty And Interests As The Scots Nibble Away At The Border

‘The demand now being made by the Scots to regulate fishing rights in the English section of the River Esk in the county of Cumbria is an invasion of England’s sovereignty’, Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated. ‘The demand is being made by Mr David Mundell, MP for Dumfrieshire, Clydesdale and Tweedsdale. He is the only Conservative MP in Scotland. Very possibly, come the next general election, he will have a place in history as the very last Conservative Party MP in Scotland. By reason of the 1998 Devolution legislation his demand is unconstitutional.’

‘When the Scotland Act was passed and a Scottish Parliament established in 1998, the Union Government had Scots as Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor and had members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention involved in drafting the actual devolution legislation. A direct constitutional consequence of the Union Parliament giving Home Rule to Scotland in 1998 in the form of a Scottish Parliament was the declaration of the internal sovereignty of Scotland. Scotland now has complete and independent control of its internal affairs. However, the very obvious constitutional implication is of course that its sovereignty is limited to its borders. The constitutional implication of the Devolution legislation is the internal sovereignty of England.

‘The Scots who drove that legislation through the Union Parliament in 1998 had only the advantage of Scotland on their minds. There is now universal acceptance that the legislation, though historic and radical, was rushed and ill-thought-out. Included in it were the regulations of fishing rights and responsibilities on rivers that crossed the Scotland/England border. Unconstitutionally it handed responsibility for the regulation of fishing rights in the River Tweed and all its tributary rivers to the Scottish Parliament, even tributaries like the River Till in Northumberland which flows entirely in England. That constitutes an invasion of English sovereignty.

‘However,the legislation correctly gave to the English Environment Agency responsibility for the English section of the River Esk which flows into the Solway Firth. Now Mr David Mundell, who is also, quite inevitably, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, is demanding that the control of fishing in the English section is taken from the English Agency and given to the Scottish Parliament To make this concession would be an attack upon England’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This government has already done this by conceding to Scottish demands to extend their control of the Solway Firth into English waters and by placing the whole of the River Till under Scottish control.

‘It now remains to be seen what response England’s Environment Agency and the Union Government give to Mr Mundell’s demand. The Chairman of the Environment Agency is Lord Chris Smith who is a Scot. However, he has lived all his political life in England and as an MP he represented an English constituency in Islington in London. The Union government however has a Scottish Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, who in March 1989 made the pledge, which is called the Scottish Claim of Right, that ‘in every deliberation and action the interests of the Scottish people will be paramount’.

Contacts

Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael.knowles@tiscali.co.uk

Scilla Cullen Chairman. CEP. Tel: 01438 833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk

Campaign For An English parliament Press Release: Will The Lords Committee Of Inquiry Into The Barnett Formula Be Fair To England?

The House of Lords has set up an Inquiry to look into all the issues surrounding the Barnett Formula. The Formula is a Treasury device set up in the Harold Wilson government under the direction of Joel Barnett by which extra expenditure is made to the populations of Scotland, N.I., and Wales in excess per head of what it makes to England. Wilson brought in the measure at the urging of Scottish Labour MPs who were very worried by the increasing popularity of the SNP. It was in effect a measure to secure support both for Labour and for the continuation of the Union. After 40 years of operation it is creating all sorts of problems, and that is why the Lords Inquiry has been set up.

‘The main problem about the Formula,’ Mrs Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament has stated in a message to the House of Lords, ‘is the injustice it is inflicting upon the people of England. We in England pay for it, to the tune of an extra £280 per English person per annum, while being denied its benefits. The disparity is gross. Each person in Scotland, N.I., and Wales receives £1500 more per year than people in England for such important areas of expenditure as education, social services and health care. Whatever was the situation in the 1960s, in the year 2008 there are areas of poverty and deprivation in England as great, possibly greater, than any in Scotland and Wales. That fact reveals the Formula’s basic flaw, that it allows increased expenditure based not on need but on nationality. The Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh gain, the English lose out. That contradicts the very basis on which the Union was founded.'

‘There is also a problem with the Lords Inquiry itself. It is essential that it is so constituted that it inspires confidence. But does it?’ Mrs Cullen asks. ‘There are 12 members on it. Two have credentials to represent Welsh interests; one being knighted for services to Wales and the other ex Chairman of the Commission on the Welsh Assembly. Three have credentials to represent Northern Irish interests being an ex NI Minister, a current NI spokesman and the ex First Minister of the NI Assembly. Four have credentials to represent Scottish interests; two being ex MPs for Scottish constituencies & former Secretaries of State for Scotland, one is a Scottish Peer and the fourth signed the Claim of Right for Scotland which included the intention of putting Scotland's interests first. That leaves three Peers, two are former British MPs for English constituencies and one a former British civil servant. Who then of these noble Lords has the express credentials to represent and protect the interests of the English taxpayer?

Contacts:

Scilla Cullen: tel: 01438 833133 email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk