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

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

It's the BBC reporting again.

But Janeh Ganesh is talking cobblers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all the better for it.

For a start the 'Anglo Saxons' never called themselves that, and the newcomers married into the existing population to form the early English - as proven by DNA studies in places like Oakington. And a 'Celtic' fringe? There isn't one. DNA proves that too. Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' linguistic label did not rewrite people's DNA. The Scots notion hopped over the water from Ireland, and the Bell Beaker People displaced around 90% of the island's Neanderthal population.

Insular? This island?

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

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

A lot of this disadvantage comes from the 1707 linguistic label 'Celtic', applied to the Welsh language and other 'insular' languages by Edward Lhuyd (the 'insular' label also being a Welsh invention although the English language, with its all its quirks and richness was created in England but doesn't qualify for the 'insular' label) and later expanded into a fake ethnicity for the Welsh, Scots and Irish. 

Wasn't Wales a web of competing factions and kingdoms, slugging it out internally, not a peaceful, united polity? Yep. Wasn't Ireland partitioned by a Welsh PM with avid backing of Protestant Scots? Yep. 

Didn't Scotland attempt its own colonisation project at Darien, blame the English (as always) for its failure, then enter the Union, thus creating Britishness as a nationality and being disproportionately active in the British Empire, then blaming the English (as always) for the whole enterprise? Yep. Wasn't the Poll Tax invented by a Scotsman called Douglas Mason and implemented there a year early at the behest of its own Secretary of State - and then the English (as always) were blamed? Yep. Weren't the Scottish Clearances carried out by the Scots, and then the English (as always) were blamed? Yep.

And meanwhile the most ethnically diverse country, England, gets less per capita spending via the Barnett Formula (even declared unfair to England by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett), meaning that those just above the poverty line in England pay nearly £10 per prescription item, while millionaires get then free in the far less ethnically diverse Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, money scooped largely from the tax payers in England.

Because everything historically was the fault of England, apparently.

And then there is the little question of the West Lothian Question, in which non-accountable MPs get to vote - and sometimes decisively - on legislation affecting only England.

You see what a mess the so-called UK is?

The Celtic Myth Creates An Elite and Demonises England - "Celts", "Nations and Regions", "Welsh Law", The 'British' Nationality, The Barnett Formula & West Lothian Question...

The Houses of Parliament - home of the so-called 'UK' Parliament - which discriminates against its largest, most ethnically diverse country, England, in favour of white tribal myths and one-sided victimhood narratives in Scotland and Wales. The interests of fifty six million people versus the privileges of eight. No contest. The Parliamentary hogs from all corners of the UK will never initiate just change, and will continue to demonize England - for as long as they can. The situation is not sustainable in the long term as more and more people in England, of all ethnicities, are beginning to wake up to the facts.

Before anybody jumps to conclusions, I am an old style Socialist. Right Wing or Left Wing nowadays seem to be all trendy agendas and quite a lot of smoke and mirrors. Nobody in 'UK' politics cares that a poor person, just above the poverty line in Great Yarmouth or Leeds, and in fact everywhere in England, pays nearly £10.00 for a prescription, but millionaires in Scotland or Wales get them for free. This article is about fact, modernity and fairness for all.

One of the biggest causes of artificial divisions between the English, Scots and Welsh is the use of the word "Celt" or "Celtic". And 'Anglo' - as in 'Anglosphere'? Nope. There was never a language called Anglo. The language was/is English, Old, Middle, Modern - and the Anglo Saxons didn't arrive in England with the Old English language ready to unpack.

It has been proven by DNA studies that the English were and are not Anglo Saxons. The Anglo Saxons (who didn't call themselves that) married in to the existing population almost from the beginning and soon formed the early English, and the Scots and Welsh were and are not Celts.

That's all down to Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd's jottings in 1707. He was writing about languages and 'Celtic' was a label he decided on.

It was never a UK bloodline, It's a myth. There may be linguistic influences (even that is uncertain - it's a label from 1707), but we are not separate ancient tribes - and certainly not ancient WHITE tribes of 'mongrel' 'Anglo Saxons' and 'pure' 'Celts'.

The fact that the the retrospectively-named 'Anglo Saxons' mixed with the existing population to form the early English is fascinating. So there is continuity in England, back to prehistoric times, and the original foundation of Englishness was an inclusive mixing of newcomers with people already here. This opens up interesting avenues to explore in the light of the DNA discoveries - the origins of the English language (the so-called Anglo Saxons did not arrive with the English language all already to unpack, and, logically, it must have evolved as a fusion with the existing population) and culture (the newcomers could not have vanquished all pre-existing culture), for instance. But the timidity of historians and the bristling hostility to anything which questions the entrenched beliefs of the so-called 'Celtic Nations' prohibits this.

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

Many 'academics' write selective studies to underpin the English=Evil narrative. They are highly selective with their material, and are easily funded, as the English=Evil narrative is popular. It sells.

The term 'Celtic' is often used in a racist sense by some Welsh, Scots and even Cornish (bandwagon-jumpers) writers and campaigners to imply a sense of belonging to this island far more than the people of England - or, in the case of Cornwall, the rest of England.

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

Were we once Romano-British? Nonsensical phrase - the Romans left hardly any genetic footprint. They occupied and ruled. An impact on culture and landscape? Most certainly! But not enough genes to have created a 'Romano-British' ethnicity. Are we or our language 'Germanic'? A term coined in relatively recent times. Rather an odd classification when viewed with modern DNA evidence. And 'Germanic' does not mean 'German' by the way. Celts? DNA evidence uncovers the truth, and we now have an exciting chance to view our real history, free of the likes of the Venerable Bede and Edward Lhuyd angles. 

But no, we musn't upset the ridiculous 'Celtic' narratives of a tiny minority outside of England.

On another matter, the sins of Empire... Scotland had already bankrupted itself on a colonial venture (Darien) before union with England, and was disproportionately active in the British Empire. Ireland was partitioned by a Welsh Prime Minister with fervent backing from Scots Protestant MPs.

In the case of Darien, some very vocal Scots (of course) try to blame England (as always). But, let's face it - the whole thing was poorly planned and reckless. Scotland cannot keep blaming England for its own mistakes. And England then paid Scotland's debts, and Scotland went on to make a mint of money in the British Empire, being, as previously mentioned, disproportionately active and far from a helpless minion.

The Scottish Clearances? Scots elites, not the English, did that - and Scotland's hugely disproportionate showing in the British Empire proves it wasn't some meek, 'oppressed' minion of England.

Did you know that the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scotsman called Douglas Mason? Well, it was! And that it was Scottish Secretary of State, who pushed for Scotland to have it a year ahead of England and Wales? Well, he did!

And Wales - an 'indigenousness' ancient nation, pre-dating all? Nope. Firstly, way, way back in the mists of history, long before England, Scotland and Wales, the Beaker People replaced around 90% of the existing Neolithic population on this island. And they didn't originate from the Welsh valleys. They came from overseas. And Wales was not a unified country even much later: it was factions, fighting and disputing each other, different kingdoms.

Welsh? An 'insular' language? Double standards there. Obviously, the island was absorbing newcomers over thousands of years. English was formed in England with clear influences from elsewhere, but that's not 'insular'? Not according to Welsh Nationalist and huge Celtic myth microphone John Rhys.

'Brittonic'? More Welsh-influenced nonsense from John Rhys, a modern word, meant to infer longer tenure on this island for a romanticised 'Celtic' elite.

Welsh Law? An ancient, egalitarian system? Pure poppycock. It's a romanticised notion from much later, designed to help Wales keep its moral superiority stance - and taking English money. 

Wales was factions, different kingdoms - and they were always squabbling and fighting. Rather like many other places. A lot of the "Welsh Law" thing is based on bits and bobs of writings from the 13th Century, apparently some of it culled from centuries earlier (no proof), and romanticised and retrofitted as something it wasn't in more recent years.

English Law and English Common Law are historical facts, well recorded. Actual history.

Do we say England was lovely? Of course not. But we're rebalancing the scales here. Selective rewritings of history to support preening and higher funding for a fiction are not acceptable.

Let's look further at Wales. Let's imagine it hadn't been incorporated into the Kingdom of England. Well, an alternative scenario might be interesting to look at. Let's say England had erected a wall between itself and this much smaller country. It will almost certainly have been invaded and there would be no Welsh identity today. No propping up its finances with Barnett largesse. Goodness knows what it would have been like today, but it would not contain people like Rhodri Morgan, proudly saying, 'We've made the English jealous!' as he abolished prescription charges for even millionaires - on English Barnett Formula largesse.

It may have been much nicer financially for everybody in England if Wales had been absorbed and flooded by people from a nation far away.

At least we wouldn't have all this current twisted, elitist nonsense.

And let's not forget that Wales voted for Brexit. 

On the subject of inclusivity, let's not forget that immigration to England is far higher than to Scotland and Wales (even proportionally) and that the white Celtic myths and victimhood narratives of Scotland and Wales do not bear putting under any objective microscope.

And yet they get copious amounts of cream from the current system.

And the Scots and Welsh may fancy themselves as 'non-racist', with their 'New Scot' bunk and so on, but their silence on millionaires in their countries getting free prescriptions, while poor people scrimp to pay nearly ten quid per item in England, and their UK MP's 'right' to influence the affairs of that far more ethnically diverse country next door speak volumes.

We are supposed to be 'the UK'. Do you ever hear the Scottish and Welsh people or politicians ever speaking against the effects of the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question on the neighbouring, far more ethnically diverse, UK folk in England?

Once Scot Tony Blair began fanning the flames of Scots and Welsh nationalism in the late 1990s, he began a course of division and elitism, based on myths and racism.

Labour politician Jack Straw said the most awful and untrue things about England in a BBC interview at the time, simply echoing Scots and Welsh bile, all very one-sided, and it was strange that a politician should actually demonize the country he was elected in, and paid to represent, in such a way. 

Don't turn to the Tories for any different. Although they don't tend to indulge in Jack Straw style anti-England rants, they worship the Union, and England as an undifferentiated lump suits them fine.

It's Scotland's Oil! No, it's not. It's UK. When you look back, Scotland has enjoyed much largesse and had its voice tremendously amplified by the union with England, via the Darien bail-out, its access to English trading markets, and its disproportionate activity in the British Empire. On top of that, we heap the Barnett Formula, and another financial formula favouring Scotland before that. The notion that 'it's Scotland's oil' implies that what's Scotland's is Scotland's, and what's England's is also Scotland's.

The Barnett Formula, declared unfair to the poor of England by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett, is still in force (and remember the Scots had a different formula favouring them before that), asymmetric national devolution has created the West Lothian Question in which non-representative MPs vote on English legislation, and all of this discriminates against the UK's largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) country, England.

If you live in England, you have to accept that some of 'your' English legislation is decided by MPs who do not represent you, and you have no power to elect or otherwise. It is happening - just check Hansard.

The Barnett Formula provides funding on a NATIONAL basis for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, above the English funding. It does not apply to anybody living in England. If somebody ever tries to bamboozle you by talking about spending in English 'regions' take no notice. Money spent in England and contributed by English taxpayers is not the issue. Extra largesse for UK countries outside England, affording luxuries like free prescriptions for millionaires, is.

And poorer areas are not just confined to the North of England, despite the UK Government's deceitful 'regions' carve up attempts. Three of the poorest streets in England were discovered to be in the so-called 'affluent' East of England! And there are areas across the whole of England that are poorer than the Scottish average.

Every poor person (in fact every person) in England suffers the Barnett disparities. The formula, the higher block grants, is only meted out to the so-called 'nations'.

So, backing up ancient white divisive myths is a priority when it comes to a minority (eight million - the combined populations of Scotland and Wales), is it, UK Parliament?

Wikipedia is a closed shop of apparently Left Wing people. Modern Left Wing is not Left Wing at all, of course. If the state of the affairs we have in the so-called UK was occurring in any other nation, the screams and howls of protest  would resound across the relevant 'Talk' pages on Wikipedia and the injustices addressed on its 'encyclopedia' pages. But everything is played down when it comes down to England, and Wikipedia does its utmost to uphold the white Celtic myth and the 'historic victimhood' narratives of Scotland and Wales. It's an obsession there, and 'Talk' pages and English history articles are loaded with nonsense about 'Anglo Saxons' (who never called themselves that) rather than 'the English'.

Anti-English bile is present in places like Canada, Australia and America - eager to find fake roots (via the Celtic myth) and eagerly buying anti-English hate (England has long been a convenient scapegoat as nobody in government speaks for it), in some cases from recent forebears, in others from the myths and nonsense emanating from Scotland and Wales which have spread out there via the fake 'Celtic diaspora'.

The Mel Gibson film Braveheart is a complete work of anti-English fiction.

The bile from minorities in Scotland and Wales also creates tensions in England itself. I have heard several new arrivals in England on my everyday round who have read the bile and believe England is evil and was the sole driver of any past wrongs. 

This is not the truth, and not the way the UK Government should be dealing with things. Of course, England is demonised, and even mention of the name discouraged. There are no attempts to establish an inclusive, civic English identity.

Ironically, it was an English politician called William Wilberforce who led the fight to abolish the British slave trade from the late 1700s onwards.

The UK Parliament is no longer fit for purpose, and hasn't been for years. It tries to create further divisions in England with its attempts to carve the country up into artificial regions (solidly rejected by the North East, but the UK Government still persists), and its MPs are like pigs at a trough. There is poverty across England (ever been to Great Yarmouth?), yet millionaires get free prescriptions in Scotland and Wales, and the 'regions' of England are a recent UK Government invention, not based in history.

New Labour's Council for the Nations and Regions is absurd. The UK is the nation, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the countries making up that nation. Yet England is being carved up, while its residents pay into the Barnett pot that fans the nationalist 'we are so progressive' notions in Scotland and Wales, like free prescriptions, because of the 'regions' (England, actually, defined by its national borders) being forced to pay and submit to the inequities of the Barnett Formula.

And we know why.

The UK Parliament is completely scurrilous, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Fairness for England would rock their cosy gravy train to its very core.

It's the same with the BBC. Furiously 'politically correct', this organisation is a piece of broken apparatus just like the UK Parliament. It bolsters up fake white Celtic myths and one-sided victimhood narratives in Scotland and Wales, blames England for everything, and backs plans to dismember it.

The British nationality? Dates back only a few centuries, the union with Scotland, and is tied to the British Empire. 'British values'? Are we talking colonization here?

The largest and most ethnically diverse UK country, England, gets horribly discriminated against by the UK Parliament, and the BBC backs it. Flying an England flag in England? Aren't you a dubious individual? BBC 'journalists' turn out copious amounts of anti-English bile and historic white myths for Scotland and Wales, and nobody bats an eyelid. We dropped the licence fee many years ago and will never sponsor its outdated bigotry again.

The only ethical way forward is a complete reorganisation of 'UK' politics, with a domestic English Parliament and funding provided according to areas' needs, not ancient white myths and bristling, jingoistic, attitudes from a tiny minority in Scotland and Wales.

We're either a UK or we're not.

If a new UK which cares for ALL its countries as countries, is non-racist and inclusive and serves everybody equally is unobtainable, then the UK must go

Because it IS NOT a united kingdom at all.

Tommy Sheridan, The Daily Record And Socialist Unity - Rewriting Poll Tax History

Ugh, this makes me seethe! An article appearing in The Daily Record and Socialist Unity once again rakes up the Poll Tax - and in a not-very-clever reworking of history, we are led to believe that it was the Scots who "spread" the Protest Campaign to England and Wales! Yep, apparently we English were bleating around like a load of sheep, as usual! It took the brave and noble Scots to energise us.

Rubbish! The arrogance of it!

I find this particularly offensive as I joined an anti-poll tax group in England in 1988 and we were going great guns by the beginning of 1989. Indeed, there were similar groups all around England before the end of 1988.

But was it worth it? After all, with history being rewritten at the Daily Record and Socialist Unity, one can hardly believe that the English had any gumption on the matter at all before the Scots showed them the way.

Drivel!

And let us not forget that the Poll Tax was the brainchild of Douglas Mason, a Scot!

Here's some stuff about the campaign in England in 1988 and 1989 -

https://www.1980sactual.com/2010/02/poll-tax.html


This one by Maria

More Points Raised...

scary_bear55@hotmail.com

Thanks, Scary Bear, I've inserted my replies to each of the points you raise in your text.

Chris,

Regarding your response to my last e-mail, noting that Tony Blair is Scottish, in my opinion Tony Blair portrays himself as English and he represents an English constituency. He was born in Scotland , his father is English and his mother is Irish. So really it’s anyones guess what nationality Tony sees himself as, but in my opinion he, or his PR people, portray him as English.

Tony Blair is Scottish. Being Scots is not a matter of race. He was born and educated in Scotland and speaks of his grandfather who used such phrases as "Ah'll gie ya a richt skelpin'!" Mr Blair's mother was apparently Irish, his father Scots. How his PR people portray him, or indeed Mr Blair portrays himself, is not part of the debate. In my opinion the man is more twisted than Rubik's Cube in its heyday. Tony Blair is Scottish.

Regarding decisions being taken by politicians who are not accountable to the English people, what did you make of the so called Son of Trident vote that took place this week? English MPs helped win a vote, which means there will continue to be nuclear weapons in Scotland .

I haven't read the story you quote, but it's right that these decisions should be UK-wide. If you look here http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2006/07/blair-government-forces-nuclear-power.html you will see that England is going to be taking a lot of the nuclear energy burden (courtesy of the Scottish Raj).

Scotland only have 59 MPs in Parliament. How many do England have? There are currently 646 MPs in Parliament. So essentially you already have an ‘English Parliament’ who can vote, and win, issues which may disadvantage Scotland , Wales or Northern Ireland.

Surely it is right that England has more MPs than Scotland? It is a much larger country. Proportionally, Scotland has had more than its quota and I believe still does.

About 75% of Scottish legislation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This means that Scottish MPs at Westminster are now voting on things that make not the slightest difference to their constituents. They are completely unaccountable. In the case of Top-Up Fees and Foundation Hospitals, Scots MPs overturned the vote of English MPs, although Scotland will be having neither of these.

This happened all the time during the last Conservative government’s days in office.

In those days, it is worth noting that Scotland had a Secretary of State to speak up for it. What did England have?

I remember the Spitting Image comedy show, doing sketches showing Scotland as a testing ground. The Conservative party are probably the main reason for the groundswell of public opinion which led to the Scottish Parliament.

I'm sorry, Scary Bear, but I find the Scottish tendency to trot out the 1980s a let-down. I was a firm socialist, so wouldn't give Thatcher house room, but Britain waas not having an easy time in the 1970s, far from it, and we tend to try and scapegoat the 1980s for everything. It's boring - they were an ever-increasingly long time ago. Throughout the 1980s, Scotland had the Barnett Formula, which ensured higher public spending.

For the record, Scots MP Malcolm Rifkind, no great fan of the English, states that the Poll Tax was not forced on Scotland (in fact, back in 1989, the Scottish Secretary did not see why Scotland should wait for England!). Mr Rifkind also states that Scotland was not used as an experiment here - http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2006/09/david-cameron-scottish-poll-tax-lies.html

There is proof printed in late 1988 and circulated in early 1989 that the Poll Tax was definitely to be implemented in England in 1990 here - http://80sactual.blogspot.com/2005/05/say-no-to-poll-tax.html - so England was definitely NOT waiting to see if it worked in Scotland.

My local action group was VERY ACTIVE from January 1989 onwards!

Thanks for your fascinating letter. I'm away for the weekend, but if you require further replies, I will be back online next week.

Cheers,

Chris


This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

David Cameron: Scottish Poll Tax Lies

Tory leader David Cameron's speech was basically an anti-English rant, designed to appeal to the most insensitive and bigoted of Scots bigots, and its references to the Poll Tax, the idea of a Scot, as an "experiment" imposed on Scotland a year before England, as already pointed out on this blog, were pure myth, but added fuel to the anti-English flavour.

Now, Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind has put the record straight in a letter to The Scotsman -although a well-known anti-English bigot himself, and therefore agreeing with the majority of David Cameron's bile, Mr Rifkind does not let the Poll Tax myth pass unchallenged. Will David Cameron now have the good grace to apologise for his disgraceful outburst, for misinforming the Scots, and fuelling further anti-English hatred in Scotland?

Or will it take further incidents of seven-year-old kids being thumped or disabled people being dragged from their cars before Mr Cameron realises that inciting hatred against the English in Scotland is simply not on?

Mr Rifkind's letter from The Scotsman (22/9/2006)...

I have read your report (16 September) of David Cameron’s remarks, and I very much agree with his general observations. But you report him as saying, on the community charge or poll tax, that “the decision to treat Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new methods of local government finance was clumsy and unjust”.

It has sometimes been suggested that the decision to introduce the poll tax in Scotland a year earlier than in England was to enable it to be tested. This is untrue, as those active in Scottish politics at the time will confirm.

The background is well known. Scotland, which had suffered a rates revaluation, was in uproar about the unfairness of the domestic rates system. Rates were also unpopular in England and the government decided to abolish them and replace them with the community charge or poll tax throughout Britain.

For various technical reasons it was going to take much longer for the legislation to be prepared in England than in Scotland. George Younger, who was then Scottish secretary, persuaded the Cabinet that the legislation should be introduced as soon as possible in Scotland and should not have to wait until the English were ready. His Cabinet colleagues accepted this request.

At no time was its timing pressed on Scottish Office ministers by Margaret Thatcher or English colleagues.

I, and my colleagues, have long recognised that the introduction of the poll tax throughout Britain was a serious political mistake. Introducing it a year earlier in Scotland was also a mistake, as we should have anticipated the damaging claim, however incorrect, that the government was using Scotland to test the new reform.

That does not alter the historical reality that the earlier introduction in Scotland, wise or foolish, was decided by Scottish Office ministers because of the unpopularity of domestic rates and not because of any pressure from Mrs Thatcher or other colleagues.

(SIR) MALCOLM RIFKIND, MP
House of Commons
London

Cameron should apologise to everybody in England. For a start, the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scot, Douglas Mason, who came up with the idea in the mid-1980s. Apologies, please Scotland? Crickets.

And then Cameron should resign. His raging English-phobia makes him unfit to be Conservative party leader. Perhaps he could join New Labour? But why are they so anti-English? Shouldn't they be representing the working classes? Or is it a little matter of votes? Well, Labour, you're hardly likely to win more voters in England by sweeping things under the carpet and demonizing the country.

We remember Scotland's Darien project, its disproportionate role in the British Empire, and the partitioning of Ireland under a Welsh PM, with avid backing of Protestant Scots MPs, even if you pretend not to.

More on the Poll Tax history here.

Hat tip to the England Project.

UPDATE...

Greg from Cumbria - howdy!

I hate the way English MPs and England were blamed for "forcing" the Poll Tax onto Scotland early. I remember that smug Australian Clive James stating on TV that the current situation was "Scotland's revenge for the Poll Tax". Stupid man.

Now at last the truth is being publicised - and, by the way, Cameron is not the only one guilty of blackening the reputation of English MPs in Scotland over the Poll Tax. A few years ago, Tony Blair was up there, going on about the West Lothian Question and saying that it was "not the same as English MPs railroading the Poll Tax through in Scotland". I think it was quoted on the CEP site or News Blog

It's not just David Cameron who should be apologising!

Thanks, Greg. Anybody got a copy of the Blair comment?

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.

Conservative Leader David Cameron - Outed - Anti-English Bigot of the Highest Order!

Conservative leader David Cameron has good advice for the English today. They must start respecting the Scots.

Because Scots have "gripes about their place in Britain".

This is the country with its own parliament. The one with five million citizens which pushes the one next door (of 50 million citizens) around.

Mr Cameron has been watching the Bill, a TV soap opera, which has apparently portrayed some drunken Scots in its storylines. This, he has decided, will not do.

Well, Mr Cameron, quite a high proportion of street drunks around where I live in Cambridgeshire do happen to be Scottish. I don't know why. Is my area not typical?

If Mr Cameron disagrees with something on TV, he should write to the company concerned, not kick out at the English and reveal his biased nature.

Being half Scots/half English, my own findings are that apart from the odd flippant use of the word "Jock", my English relatives accept the Scots as kin. But from the majority of members of my North of the Border family, vitriol against the English regularly spews forth. It can be alarming.

Remember people being attacked in Scotland for wearing England shirts this year, including a seven-year-old child?

This is how Mr Cameron's outrageous planned speech is reported in one Scottish newspaper:

David Cameron will today tell the English they are ignorant about Scotland and will challenge the stereotype "that always has a Scot as the drunk on The Bill".....He will add that one aspect of Scottish-English relations he wants to address is attitudes, "and in particular, the ignorance of English people about Scots and Scotland...It matters because the Union is supposed to be a relationship of equals. Not in terms of size, obviously [Nor voting privileges or health, transport and education funding]. But certainly in terms of that most precious of commodities – respect."

The insertion belongs to Gareth of the CEP News Blog.

Mr Cameron has already stopped his party from looking into the democratic deficit facing England. He has already told us that the Barnett Formula is justified because the Scots and Scotland bring so much to the UK. He has already blethered on about the Scottish blood in his veins.

So, despite declaring himself English in his speech, it is clear that Cameron is, in reality, a rabid Little Scotlander.

I'm very puzzled by one statement in the Scotsman article:

David Cameron will today tell the English they are ignorant about Scotland...

But his speech is in Glasgow and will, in all probability, not be reported in England.

Brave Mr Cameron. Bigoted Mr Cameron. Slimy Mr Cameron.

UPDATE

Well, what a speech!

Superhuman Scots? A mangling of the situation regarding "British" sports men and women? A viewpoint that is so plainly bigoted Scot that no amount of David Cameron crying "I'm English!" or going on about "respecting" each corner of the UK will disguise it?

It's all there and reads like an ignorant rant on the letters page of a cheap Scottish tabloid newspaper.

Oh dear... the Tories will be biting the dust in England as well as in Scotland if this keeps up.

The full text of Mr Cameron's venemous, anti-English rant can be found below....

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=132019&speeches=1

UPDATE 2

Greg from Cumbria

I believe that the only good Tory is a lavotory, always have, but the Poll Tax did not begin in Scotland a year early because it was an experiment. Plans were well in hand to implement it in England in 1989 [ true, Greg - see here], it was a certainty for 1990, but the early start for Scotland was because of a mid-80s rates re-evaluation - and many Scots believed that the Tax would help.

Cameron apologises for this "experiment" because his grasp of past politics is blurred and odd, clouded by Scottish bigotry and a desire to fan the flames of anti-English hatred in his spiritual homeland. Scotland is the country where a child was attacked for wearing an England football shirt this year. And David Cameron has been stirring the anti-English pot further. What a great man.

Loved the way "nations and regions" sneaked into his speech as reported in the Scotsman!

David Cameron is appealing to anti-English bigots in Scotland - and is clearly one himself. He thinks it's clever to declare himself "proud to be English" but he isn't. Englishness is a state of a mind, like any other national feeling. Cameron is a Little Scotlander - striking out at "sour Little Englanders" (people like me and thee who want a fair deal for England) and slagging us off left, right and centre to his perceived fellow countrymen.

The fact that they wouldn't elect him gift wrapped with tartan bells on is lost on him. And his stock will sink lower in England because of this.

But his heart belongs to Scotland.

It is time the Tories got themselves a decent leader - one dedicated to restoring democracy to the 50 million people who make up the electorate in England, not a shit stirring Little Scotlander.

Must do better, folks.

And here's Sylv from Salford

I reckon you're all over-estimating Dave Cameron. Yeh, the guy might have some romantic Victorian notions of his ancestors tossing their cabers in the bonny, bonny heather, but he's not really pro-Scottish. Or anti-English. He's just a Unionist twit with a huge ego.

"Imagine if I get more Scots to vote Tory - to vote for ME! Imagine what a feather in my cap that would be! Everybody would then KNOW how super I am!"

It's vote whoring, pure and simple.

The fact that he might upset the English with his unfair comments or stir up more anti English crap in Scotland doesn't occur to him.

The fact that the Scots think he's a pathetic Tory twat (and he is) is completely beyond his radar.

He's a bear of very little brain.

This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.