The Secret Person has been researching the full details of the EU's Lisbon Treaty reinstatement of the Death Penalty:
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’
Read the full details and analysis at the Secret Person here.
This blog is not right wing or left wing. It is old style Socialist, true Socialist, and simply points out the facts regarding asymmetric national devolution, which is based on Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' labelling of certain languages and historical revisionism, and how it disadvantages ALL people in the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country of all - England.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The EU Lisbon Treaty Brings Back The Death Penalty
We're not against the concept of a European Union - we actually love the idea. But not a European Dictatorship - which abolishes nations and basically our right to any say. And that is what is happening with the current EU set up.
It's terrifying. And all our politicians are keeping rather quiet about it - even those shouting are not shouting nearly loud enough, our media is not reporting the truth of what is happening, everything is ignored, lied about or played down to the max, and we, the voters, of course, are being denied a referendum.
All sorts of incredible things are happening, and now, via Wonko, we learn that the libertarian EU, apparently so anti-death penalty, has now decided it is to be reinstated - though the fact is craftily hidden away in a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty: the death penalty is apparently abolished "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval".
We're personally against the death penalty under any circumstances, but here the EU makes it plain it will not be used against proven murderers or the likes but in the event of war or protest.
Looks like our powers to protest against our new Masters are being severely curtailed. Unless we want to pay the ultimate price.
The EU experiment must be halted.
It's terrifying. And all our politicians are keeping rather quiet about it - even those shouting are not shouting nearly loud enough, our media is not reporting the truth of what is happening, everything is ignored, lied about or played down to the max, and we, the voters, of course, are being denied a referendum.
All sorts of incredible things are happening, and now, via Wonko, we learn that the libertarian EU, apparently so anti-death penalty, has now decided it is to be reinstated - though the fact is craftily hidden away in a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty: the death penalty is apparently abolished "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval".
We're personally against the death penalty under any circumstances, but here the EU makes it plain it will not be used against proven murderers or the likes but in the event of war or protest.
Looks like our powers to protest against our new Masters are being severely curtailed. Unless we want to pay the ultimate price.
The EU experiment must be halted.
Friday, April 11, 2008
1984 - Orwell's Version Becomes Reality
Experience the horrors of 1984 - no, not that one!We've viewed with concern the new powers the UK Government has given itself in the name of anti-terrorism, and the pathetic eagerness of some to give up hard fought for civil liberties. And guess what? The new laws have already been used to spy on perfectly ordinary, everyday people - suspected of a highly trivial, non-criminal misdemeanour.
Under the New Labour fright regime, spying on innocent people is a functioning aspect of our lives. The council in Poole, Dorset have taken advantage of the anti-terror laws brought in by the Blair part of this disgraceful government. Poole Borough Council has disclosed that it had legitimately used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to spy on a family. This family had been "shopped" to the council by an unknown person. For two weeks the middle-class family was followed by council officials who wanted to establish whether they had given a false address within the catchment area of an oversubscribed school to secure a place for their three-year-old.
Read the full, startling and infuriating tale over at A View From Middle England - here.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
The Truth About The Unfair Barnett Formula - By Its Creator...
We've known it for years, Lord Joel Barnett, devisor of the Barnett Formula in the late 1970s, has admitted his shame over his name being associated with the Barnett Formula, and now he is speaking up again after Gordon Brown has once more told a bared faced lie in the House of Commons, trotting out that hoary old chestnut that the formula is "needs based".Says Lord Barnett:
"All I did was put together, almost on the back of an envelope, a mechanism for allocating public expenditure between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the basis of population - even that was on approximate numbers.
"There was nothing scientific about this but I naively thought it made life easier for me because I didn't need to then have detailed and individual debates with the individual Secretaries of State for the various areas of the UK."
He added: "I don't think I even put it to Cabinet because it was simply a system of expenditure allocation, making life a little easier for me."
Lord Barnett said he thought it would only last a year or two before being replaced by a system based on need.
"The current Prime Minister has frequently said in recent years that the formula is based on need but it isn't.
"It is based on a per-capita basis although varied slightly over the years - a very simple system, very simple but very wrong."
Read the full story here.
Meanwhile, Toque has news of Gordon Brown's latest wheeze - selling off English NHS hospital land and buildings. Read it here.
But, of course, this is only in England - it's only the best for Gordon's own constituents up in Scotland - and for the elites in the two other so-called "Celtic nations"...
Thanks to the Barnett Formula and Gordon's incredibly pronounced anti-English/England stance.
Monday, April 07, 2008
The CEP stands up for English university students while the NUS lets them down
Press Release: CEP stands up for English university students while the NUS lets them down
The CEP carries on with its opposition to the Government’s policy of discrimination against English university students.
The Campaign for an English Parliament has deplored the decision of the National Union of Students last week to end its opposition to the tuition and top-up fees which are being imposed upon English university students.
‘We want every English student to know’, stated Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the CEP, ‘that the Campaign for an English Parliament will not stop campaigning against the fees New Labour has inflicted on English students while sparing Scottish and Welsh students. English students are being hit with immense debts while Scottish students are not.
In England university students have to pay £3145 each year of their university life. Students loans then have to be repaid at 4.8% interest rates after graduation.
Welsh students don’t have anything like the fee burden English students have. Their fees are only £1255 pa.’
However, in Scotland university students have no fees to pay. What’s more, the Scottish parliament has also made grants up to £2510 available to Scottish students coming from families on low incomes, which are not available in England. To make the discrimination even worse English students at Scottish universities have to pay their fees, while EU students do not; and Scottish students, and indeed Isle of Man students, at English unviersities pay no fees. What is quite grotesque about the whole situation is that, at the same time as the Scottish Parliament was legislatiing to relieve its students of fees, the vote in the UK Parliament to impose top-up fees on English students was carried only by the Scottish MPs in Westminister voting for them to give New Labour its majority in the vote in the House.The majority of English MPs voted against them.
‘The only way forward out of this discrimination’ says Mrs Cullen, ‘is for England to have its own parliament just as Scotland has. The UK government is just seeing England, which provides 85% of its whole tax revenue, as a milch cow from which Scotland and Wales benefit at the expense of the people of England. All the MPs who have imposed these fees upon English students got their university education completely free. The injustice to England is grotesque; and it is time that of the 660 Westminster MPs the 550 who are English start to stand up for their country. England should matter as much to them as Scotland does to the Scottish MPs both at Westminster and Edinburgh. They should stand up for their constituents. I can assure English students that is what an English Parliament will do.’
All students are invited to the CEP National Conference taking place at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. It is free and open to everyone.
The CEP carries on with its opposition to the Government’s policy of discrimination against English university students.
The Campaign for an English Parliament has deplored the decision of the National Union of Students last week to end its opposition to the tuition and top-up fees which are being imposed upon English university students.
‘We want every English student to know’, stated Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the CEP, ‘that the Campaign for an English Parliament will not stop campaigning against the fees New Labour has inflicted on English students while sparing Scottish and Welsh students. English students are being hit with immense debts while Scottish students are not.
In England university students have to pay £3145 each year of their university life. Students loans then have to be repaid at 4.8% interest rates after graduation.
Welsh students don’t have anything like the fee burden English students have. Their fees are only £1255 pa.’
However, in Scotland university students have no fees to pay. What’s more, the Scottish parliament has also made grants up to £2510 available to Scottish students coming from families on low incomes, which are not available in England. To make the discrimination even worse English students at Scottish universities have to pay their fees, while EU students do not; and Scottish students, and indeed Isle of Man students, at English unviersities pay no fees. What is quite grotesque about the whole situation is that, at the same time as the Scottish Parliament was legislatiing to relieve its students of fees, the vote in the UK Parliament to impose top-up fees on English students was carried only by the Scottish MPs in Westminister voting for them to give New Labour its majority in the vote in the House.The majority of English MPs voted against them.
‘The only way forward out of this discrimination’ says Mrs Cullen, ‘is for England to have its own parliament just as Scotland has. The UK government is just seeing England, which provides 85% of its whole tax revenue, as a milch cow from which Scotland and Wales benefit at the expense of the people of England. All the MPs who have imposed these fees upon English students got their university education completely free. The injustice to England is grotesque; and it is time that of the 660 Westminster MPs the 550 who are English start to stand up for their country. England should matter as much to them as Scotland does to the Scottish MPs both at Westminster and Edinburgh. They should stand up for their constituents. I can assure English students that is what an English Parliament will do.’
All students are invited to the CEP National Conference taking place at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. It is free and open to everyone.
Campaign For An English Parliament: Gordon Brown's Statement Reeks Of Hypocrisy
GORDON BROWN SLAMMED FOR HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS.
CEP Press Release, Wednesday, 26 March, 2008.
On the eve of announcing a review of devolution in Scotland for the purpose of extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament Gordon Brown denounced nationalism in the UK, saying it was a threat to the stability and the health of the Union.
'His hypocrisy is incredible' Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign has retorred. 'Simply incredible. It's time he began to have a serious debate with himself. It was Brown who with other prominent Scottish MPs such as Alistair Darling who signed the Scottish 'Claim of Right' in Edinburgh in 1989 declaring that under the UN Charter of the Rights of Nations Scotland had 'the right to govern itself'. It was he, together with Alistair Darling and his fellow Scottish MPs, who then put their signatures to the solemn promise 'to make the interests of Scotland paramount in everything they did'. It was Brown who was the engine behind the Scottish Constitutional Convention and steamrolled the legislation setting up a Scottish Parliament through Westminster in 1998. If the Union is now under threat, it is Gordon Brown who more than anyone else has wounded it.'
'What is even more hypocritical', Mrs Cullen has stated,' is the way he is now denouncing English nationalism after he spent the 80s and most of the 90s fomenting Scottish nationalism and making Scotland some 75% independent of the United Kingdom and self-ruling in all its internal affairs. He is trying to represent the rise in English patriotism as a threat to the Union when all we want is what he got for his own Scotland. He let the genie of Scottish nationalism out of the bottle, it was who unscrewed the lid. Now we want the chance to speak our minds in a referendum like his people did. We want the same opportunity to consider and debate our future just like Scotland has had. To achieve that the Campaign is organising a major national conference open to everyone to take place Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London on April 26th. Speakers include Frank Field MP, Canon Kenyon Wright OBE, Simon Lee of Hull University and Hugo de Burgh Professor of Journalism at Westminster University'
for contacts:
Michael Knowles Head of Media Unit, Campaign for an English Parliament
Tel: 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen, Chairman
Tel: 01439 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
CEP Press Release, Wednesday, 26 March, 2008.
On the eve of announcing a review of devolution in Scotland for the purpose of extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament Gordon Brown denounced nationalism in the UK, saying it was a threat to the stability and the health of the Union.
'His hypocrisy is incredible' Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign has retorred. 'Simply incredible. It's time he began to have a serious debate with himself. It was Brown who with other prominent Scottish MPs such as Alistair Darling who signed the Scottish 'Claim of Right' in Edinburgh in 1989 declaring that under the UN Charter of the Rights of Nations Scotland had 'the right to govern itself'. It was he, together with Alistair Darling and his fellow Scottish MPs, who then put their signatures to the solemn promise 'to make the interests of Scotland paramount in everything they did'. It was Brown who was the engine behind the Scottish Constitutional Convention and steamrolled the legislation setting up a Scottish Parliament through Westminster in 1998. If the Union is now under threat, it is Gordon Brown who more than anyone else has wounded it.'
'What is even more hypocritical', Mrs Cullen has stated,' is the way he is now denouncing English nationalism after he spent the 80s and most of the 90s fomenting Scottish nationalism and making Scotland some 75% independent of the United Kingdom and self-ruling in all its internal affairs. He is trying to represent the rise in English patriotism as a threat to the Union when all we want is what he got for his own Scotland. He let the genie of Scottish nationalism out of the bottle, it was who unscrewed the lid. Now we want the chance to speak our minds in a referendum like his people did. We want the same opportunity to consider and debate our future just like Scotland has had. To achieve that the Campaign is organising a major national conference open to everyone to take place Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London on April 26th. Speakers include Frank Field MP, Canon Kenyon Wright OBE, Simon Lee of Hull University and Hugo de Burgh Professor of Journalism at Westminster University'
for contacts:
Michael Knowles Head of Media Unit, Campaign for an English Parliament
Tel: 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen, Chairman
Tel: 01439 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
CEP: Prescription Charges Blow A Huge Hole In The Very Idea Of A United Kingdom
Campaign For An English Parliament Press Release.
What sort of Union has the United Kingdom become?
With the announcement from the Scottish Parliament that prescription charges will be reduced to £5 in Scotland and abolished altogether in 2011; and from the Union Parliament that they will be increased to £7.10p in England; while in Wales its Assembly has already made them free to all its population, the question has been asked yet again: What sort of Union is the United Kingdom?
'It is a Union in which the people of England are discriminated against at every turn when they look at what is happening in Scotland and Wales,' said Mrs Veronica Newman, Secretary of the Campaign for an English Parliament. 'And this is only one of an ever-increasing list of differences between the three countries which has come about since Scotland and Wales got devolution and we in England did not. What makes in unbelievably worse is the fact that the Union government makes it all possible for Scotland and Wales through taxation upon English tax payers. Every English tax payer pays £281 more tax per year to subsidise Scotland which does not collect in enough tax to pay its way. The unfairness and the discrimination is getting beyond belief'.'
Mrs Newman, who is also the organiser of the Campaign in the county of Wiltshire, raised the whole issue at a meeting of her branch members. 'Where are the 550 MPs who out of the 650 in the Union Parliament represent English constituencies?' she asked. 'Why don't they show concern for their English constituents who are being treated so unfairly? What are they elected by their English constituents for if not to stand up for them? Why do they keep silent and let this happen? All five ministers in the Department of Health: Alan Johnson, Dawn Primarolo, Ben Bradshaw, Ann Keen and Ivan Lewis are English MPs. Yet not one of them shows the slightest concern at this gross injustice. What are they in office as MPs and as ministers for? '
The Head of the CEP Media Unit has circulated a statement to all the membership in which he asks the question which everyone is now beginning to think about. 'Could it be the case that with a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer the Union finances are being used to benefit Scotland over England? After all,' he said, 'in 1989 both men signed the Scottish Claim of Right which expressly committed them to making the interests of Scotland paramount in everything they did as MPs. Only if England has its own parliament like Scotland has, can it stand up for just and fair treatment by the Union of the English people'
The Campaign is holding an Open Conference on 'The Future of England' at which these and related issues will be debated. It takes place in the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. Principle speakers are Frank Field MP, Simon Lee Department of Politics Hull University, Canon Kenyon Wright of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and Professor Hugo de Burgh of Westminster University. The conference is free to attend and open to the public.
End of press release.
for contacts:
Michael Knowles Head of Media Unit, Campaign for an English Parliament
Tel: 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen, Chairman
Tel: 01439 833155
Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
What sort of Union has the United Kingdom become?
With the announcement from the Scottish Parliament that prescription charges will be reduced to £5 in Scotland and abolished altogether in 2011; and from the Union Parliament that they will be increased to £7.10p in England; while in Wales its Assembly has already made them free to all its population, the question has been asked yet again: What sort of Union is the United Kingdom?
'It is a Union in which the people of England are discriminated against at every turn when they look at what is happening in Scotland and Wales,' said Mrs Veronica Newman, Secretary of the Campaign for an English Parliament. 'And this is only one of an ever-increasing list of differences between the three countries which has come about since Scotland and Wales got devolution and we in England did not. What makes in unbelievably worse is the fact that the Union government makes it all possible for Scotland and Wales through taxation upon English tax payers. Every English tax payer pays £281 more tax per year to subsidise Scotland which does not collect in enough tax to pay its way. The unfairness and the discrimination is getting beyond belief'.'
Mrs Newman, who is also the organiser of the Campaign in the county of Wiltshire, raised the whole issue at a meeting of her branch members. 'Where are the 550 MPs who out of the 650 in the Union Parliament represent English constituencies?' she asked. 'Why don't they show concern for their English constituents who are being treated so unfairly? What are they elected by their English constituents for if not to stand up for them? Why do they keep silent and let this happen? All five ministers in the Department of Health: Alan Johnson, Dawn Primarolo, Ben Bradshaw, Ann Keen and Ivan Lewis are English MPs. Yet not one of them shows the slightest concern at this gross injustice. What are they in office as MPs and as ministers for? '
The Head of the CEP Media Unit has circulated a statement to all the membership in which he asks the question which everyone is now beginning to think about. 'Could it be the case that with a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer the Union finances are being used to benefit Scotland over England? After all,' he said, 'in 1989 both men signed the Scottish Claim of Right which expressly committed them to making the interests of Scotland paramount in everything they did as MPs. Only if England has its own parliament like Scotland has, can it stand up for just and fair treatment by the Union of the English people'
The Campaign is holding an Open Conference on 'The Future of England' at which these and related issues will be debated. It takes place in the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. Principle speakers are Frank Field MP, Simon Lee Department of Politics Hull University, Canon Kenyon Wright of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and Professor Hugo de Burgh of Westminster University. The conference is free to attend and open to the public.
End of press release.
for contacts:
Michael Knowles Head of Media Unit, Campaign for an English Parliament
Tel: 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen, Chairman
Tel: 01439 833155
Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Union Jack - The Flag Of Oppression
Like David Cameron, Gordon Brown simply cannot resist a bit of Scots jingoism. But it will hopefully contribute to his downfall...From the Sunday Times:
PUBLIC buildings in Scotland will be allowed to fly the Saltire year-round following a government climbdown in response to pressure from nationalists.
UK ministers will this week announce the lifting of restrictions on flag flying that have been in force since 1924. The rules stipulate that the Union Jack must must take precedence over all national flags on 18 days each year.
Scottish government buildings with only one flagpole must take down the Saltire and replace it with the Union Jack on specified national days including the Queen's birthday, Remembrance Day and Commonwealth Day. The decision to give the Saltire equal status has been welcomed by the Scottish National party. “It's a recognition that we are in charge of our flag flying arrangements,” said a senior Scottish government source.
Read it all here.
So, with no mandate Prime Minister Gordon Brown's "Britishness" drive in England and his insistence that the Union Flag (which also features the Saltire, the flag of his own country) is flown on all our public buildings, never the Cross of St George, and with Wales and Northern Ireland acquiring more and more powers, it looks like the oppression and sheer unfairness of Scottish-Raj led UK rulership is finally strangling England.
Of course, it was a daft decision for ministers to allow this latest "right" for Scotland. But it demonstrates more clearly than mere words on my part their complete and utter contempt for the people of England.
Spit on the Union Flag...
The flag which sees a non-representative Prime Minister ruling England...
The flag which sees people dying in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland...
The flag which sees Scotland ruling several English rivers...
The flag which sees prescriptions are free to all, including millionaires, in Wales, and that Council Tax has been capped in Scotland whilst it soars in England...
The flag which sees lower health and public spending in England than elsewhere in the so-called "UK"...
The flag which sees that Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can foist legislation onto England which will not affect their owsn constituents...
The flag which sees England broken up into regions, against our will, and denies the people of England a say on the future of England, the UK and the EU...
The Union Flag is a flag of oppression. You'll see it cropping up on public buildings all around you as Gordon Brown tries to hoodwink the public in England into believing that devolution has not happened.
Spread the word.
The Union Flag is now a symbol of evil.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gordon Brown Says He Feels Your Pain, But Sadly He Inflicted Most Of It!
In an exclusive interview in the Sun today, Premier Gordon Brown tells us he feels our pain as we cope with soaring household bills. But trust in him, he will see us through.This is the man who cut the capital budget of the English NHS from 6.2bn to 4.2bn in one of his last acts as Chancellor. Of course, the budgets of his own country, Scotland, and the fellow "Celtic" nations of Wales and Northern Ireland were unaffected - read about it in the Financial Times - here.
This is the man who this very day was standing up in Parliament talking about "nations and regions". You know the nations - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. You know the regions - fragmented areas which once constituted a nation called England.
Mr Brown feels your pain when you're dying in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland. He feels your pain when you are digging deep for money to pay for soaring prescription costs - free to everybody, including millionaires, in Wales.
Actually, Gordon Brown does not feel your pain.
Gordon Brown is a self-serving, racist, anti-English LIAR.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
David Cameron - A Racist Himself!
David Cameron - racist slime.David Cameron has, quite rightly, condemned the BNP, but is guilty of a form of racism himself. Against every man, woman and child in England.
David Cameron does not have the Barnett Formula or West Lothian Question on his top five list of priorities, and as for health apartheid - he doesn't even mention it. Dying in England? Well, the Union comes before your life.
Quote: "I would rather have an imperfect Union rather than some perfect constitutional construct that would threaten the Union."
And Mr Cameron has also been revealing his Scots jingoistic natire, informing us that his maternal grandmother's family:
"...were Scottish Empire builders - conquered all sorts of parts of India, I think."
Note, not BRITISH Empire builders, but Scottish. Read the full article here -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/nbrits310.xml
and more WENAP material on it here -
http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2007/12/read-between-lines-david-cameron-hates.html
David Cameron tries to fool us into believing that he is English. He is not. Nationality is largely a state of mind. He actually does not care for the English at all. He can't possibly - or he would be up in arms about the fact you can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, or that prescriptions are free to millionaires in Wales but in England they are soaring and many of us can barely afford them, whilst not qualifying for any financial assistance.
David Cameron talks of the "Scottish Empire" and flags up his own apparently mixed UK origins, saying we must all be British, whilst accepting that in Wales and Scotland people can also be Welsh and Scots and have their own national representative bodies and higher spending.
For those desiring parity in England, David Cameron has nothing but contempt: "Sour Little Englanders!"
David Cameron is just as bad as the British National Party and Gordon Brown. David Cameron sits by whilst people in England die for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland and muddies the water as best he can to prolong the disparities. To keep England as the poor relation in the UK.
David Cameron has no room to go talking about the BNP. The man is a hateful, racist muddier of facts himself.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
"Alba" Comments...
Alba has long frequented the CEP News Blog and others, expressing his view that it's the British who are at fault in the devolutionary debacle and that Scots as Scots have no share of the blame. After our post yesterday, Alba popped in this morning to air his views. Here they are, and our replies...
Alba: What a lot of racist, spitting, vitriolic garbage.
Us: Why? We're saying that English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are nationalities, not races and that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are no more Celts than the English are Anglo Saxons. Why is that racist?
Alba: Here's a few points for you, racist.
Us: Once again, why? We're not talking about "Celtic nations" as you do. We accept each nation of the UK as being multi-ethnic.
Alba: - I don't 'dream' of the day about football victories [unless you've managed to get that from the mail??
Us: You seemed to be relishing such a prospect.
Alba: - I'm not anti-democratic. I'm very much on your side - seen this morning's headlines? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm Now THAT is scary.
- I've no idea where you get off saying I am downing Anglo-Saxon England? Is this a sideways comment to your white racist supremest thoughts about immigration?
Us: Eh? We stated that English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are not races but nationalities. You were the one banging on about the "three Celtic nations". We don't believe that England IS Anglo Saxon and stated that clearly.
Alba: - Scotland doesn't get free prescriptions, although it may come later. I didn't make devolution and I don't need to be lectured on post-devolution imbalance. That's not a Scotland/Wales/England thing as I've told and explained to your THICK head a dozen times. It is a BRITISH problem and it is the UNION and the plate spinning therein that's to blame.
Us: We were talking about your definition of "Celts" - the Welsh get free prescriptions and Scotland is discussing the idea, the NHS in Scotland provides life prolonging medication not available on the NHS in England. The Prime Minister is not accountable to the English electorate, he was elected in Scotland and a lot of his policies do not affect his own constituents. He also signed the Scottish Claim Of Right, and has recently been proclaiming himself as being "as Scottish as Alex Salmond."
Alba: - You come across like a four-year-old and are something of a political joke.
Us: We find that the blogosphere seems to have a lot of sites which are excellent for academics and the educated; some of these sites seem to be anti-English (like Our Kingdom) whilst professing to be neutral. It is our aim to plug a gap in the blogosphere by giving our views as common-of-garden, non-academic nurses and care workers. We don't claim to be anything even remotely clever.
The blogosphere has room for all...
Alba: - 'Nationalities' are great, until those nationalities are rendered as 'regions'. And I'm afraid Scotland has a greater chance of such steam-rolling for different reasons to the problems that act as a catalyst for a 'changing England'.
- Numptie.
Us: And throughout all this, Alba still seems to think he and the Scots, Welsh and Irish are "Celts". We've no more to say.
Replies by: DREW & FIONA
Alba: What a lot of racist, spitting, vitriolic garbage.
Us: Why? We're saying that English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are nationalities, not races and that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are no more Celts than the English are Anglo Saxons. Why is that racist?
Alba: Here's a few points for you, racist.
Us: Once again, why? We're not talking about "Celtic nations" as you do. We accept each nation of the UK as being multi-ethnic.
Alba: - I don't 'dream' of the day about football victories [unless you've managed to get that from the mail??
Us: You seemed to be relishing such a prospect.
Alba: - I'm not anti-democratic. I'm very much on your side - seen this morning's headlines? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm Now THAT is scary.
- I've no idea where you get off saying I am downing Anglo-Saxon England? Is this a sideways comment to your white racist supremest thoughts about immigration?
Us: Eh? We stated that English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are not races but nationalities. You were the one banging on about the "three Celtic nations". We don't believe that England IS Anglo Saxon and stated that clearly.
Alba: - Scotland doesn't get free prescriptions, although it may come later. I didn't make devolution and I don't need to be lectured on post-devolution imbalance. That's not a Scotland/Wales/England thing as I've told and explained to your THICK head a dozen times. It is a BRITISH problem and it is the UNION and the plate spinning therein that's to blame.
Us: We were talking about your definition of "Celts" - the Welsh get free prescriptions and Scotland is discussing the idea, the NHS in Scotland provides life prolonging medication not available on the NHS in England. The Prime Minister is not accountable to the English electorate, he was elected in Scotland and a lot of his policies do not affect his own constituents. He also signed the Scottish Claim Of Right, and has recently been proclaiming himself as being "as Scottish as Alex Salmond."
Alba: - You come across like a four-year-old and are something of a political joke.
Us: We find that the blogosphere seems to have a lot of sites which are excellent for academics and the educated; some of these sites seem to be anti-English (like Our Kingdom) whilst professing to be neutral. It is our aim to plug a gap in the blogosphere by giving our views as common-of-garden, non-academic nurses and care workers. We don't claim to be anything even remotely clever.
The blogosphere has room for all...
Alba: - 'Nationalities' are great, until those nationalities are rendered as 'regions'. And I'm afraid Scotland has a greater chance of such steam-rolling for different reasons to the problems that act as a catalyst for a 'changing England'.
- Numptie.
Us: And throughout all this, Alba still seems to think he and the Scots, Welsh and Irish are "Celts". We've no more to say.
Replies by: DREW & FIONA
Monday, March 10, 2008
We Are The Celts! Cry The Little Scotlanders, Waleans, etc...
One of the most ridiculous examples of racist double standards in the UK today is the idea that the English are a mongrel breed, unfit for national recognition, and the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are "Celts" - frightening notions of ethnic and genetic purity!
It often reveals itself in the cries of Little Scotlanders, Waleans and even the "Cornish", though we've not yet come across it to any degree amongst Irish people of our acquaintance.
In this CEP thread -
http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2008/03/08/nooooooooooooooooooooooo/#comment-119
- you can read the thoughts of a regular participant, a Scot, who calls him/herself "Alba" and dreams of the day when the "Celtic nations" beat the English at football.
Very strange. The people behind Our Kingdom, meanwhile, determinedly anti-fascist (and anti-democratic) when it comes England, don't turn a hair at the notion of Celtic ethnic purity in the other UK nations.
English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are nationalities, not races. And as the notion of an Anglo Saxon population in England is debunked and ridiculed, surely the same should apply to the primping, preening "Celts", with all their special priviliges in the modern day UK - you know, life prolonging medications, free prescriptions, etc, etc?
Not racist that sort of thing, is it? It would only be racist if it was the people of England who were enjoying the benefits, and not those in Scotland and Wales.
Sick!
WRITTEN BY DREW & FIONA
It often reveals itself in the cries of Little Scotlanders, Waleans and even the "Cornish", though we've not yet come across it to any degree amongst Irish people of our acquaintance.
In this CEP thread -
http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2008/03/08/nooooooooooooooooooooooo/#comment-119
- you can read the thoughts of a regular participant, a Scot, who calls him/herself "Alba" and dreams of the day when the "Celtic nations" beat the English at football.
Very strange. The people behind Our Kingdom, meanwhile, determinedly anti-fascist (and anti-democratic) when it comes England, don't turn a hair at the notion of Celtic ethnic purity in the other UK nations.
English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are nationalities, not races. And as the notion of an Anglo Saxon population in England is debunked and ridiculed, surely the same should apply to the primping, preening "Celts", with all their special priviliges in the modern day UK - you know, life prolonging medications, free prescriptions, etc, etc?
Not racist that sort of thing, is it? It would only be racist if it was the people of England who were enjoying the benefits, and not those in Scotland and Wales.
Sick!
WRITTEN BY DREW & FIONA
Peter Facey
Peter Facey and "Unlock Democracy" are both heartily endorsed by the chattering classes.Peter Facey and "Unlock Democracy" are however very puzzling entities indeed.
How do we "unlock democracy" without giving England parity within the UK - and devolution has been awarded on grounds of nationhood elsewhere?
Mr Facey, and therefore "Unlock Democracy", believe that the current Governmernt should carve England up into regions and that it should be subsumed into the UK.
That England should exist no more. And that it should be at the behest of our current corrupt and non-representative political elite.
Surely, England needs a representative national parliament and THAT should decide how England is governed internally? Not according to Mr Facey.
It's illogical. It's the sort of thing that should Joe Bloggs say it, he would be snorted at derisively. But because Mr Facey has the "right background", the chattering classes allow him to chunter unchallenged and believe that the man probably has a point.
"I couldn't have debated well enough," said one person who had spent time debating the English issue with Mr Facey on the more-than-slightly twisted "Our Kingdom" site the day before the Justice Committee hearing.
But Mr Facey does not debate. He gives no replies, no good reason for his anti-English stance.
Pop eyed, defensive body language at the Justice Committee, an absolute refusal to see what democracy MEANS and a site called "Unlock Democracy". How logical is Peter Facey? How democratic? And just what is behind his bizarre mindset?
But the man has the "right background" so gets away with it all, virtually unscathed.
Who said the class system is dead? Why doesn't somebody tell this man that unless he can back up his opinions with logical arguments, he is doing nobody any favours?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Sue Campbell on "Conniving" MSP Christine Grahame
Born in England, but more Scottish than day old haggis, Christine Grahame uses her place of birth to try and make out that her actions are justified and that she's truly fair-minded. In reality, she's a conniving anti-English... er... MSP!
The SNP are anxious to use her to front their most dishonest endeavours, because then they can say: "But she was born in England! She's English! She has no axe to grind!"
No she isn't English - and yes she does have an axe to grind. She hates the English. I was born in Scotland and my Dad's a Scot, but believe me nationality's really a state of mind and I'm English!
See more about Ms Grahame here.
The SNP are anxious to use her to front their most dishonest endeavours, because then they can say: "But she was born in England! She's English! She has no axe to grind!"
No she isn't English - and yes she does have an axe to grind. She hates the English. I was born in Scotland and my Dad's a Scot, but believe me nationality's really a state of mind and I'm English!
See more about Ms Grahame here.
Our Kingdom: The Secret Person - A Reply...
From The Secret Person:
While I disagree with Peter Facey and co. Our Kingdom has also allowed the CEP's Michael Knowles and Gareth Young to make contributions. I think anything that gets people talking about the English question is worthwhile. These are exactly the type of people and arguments we will come up against in persuading the British establishment so it is useful to argue against them now.
We reply:
Thank you for writing.
With all due respect, we disagree. Our Kingdom is not what it stated it would be, the likes of Anthony Barnett are actually anti-English fascists, out to smear any campaigns for equality for England as "racist" - it is not a site for fair debate with its organisers having such a strong agenda of their own. They may deny they have such an agenda, but just read through the site. The facts speak for themselves.
Because of most of its content, we don't see Our Kingdom as a quality site. Just because it declared itself as important at the outset and the chattering classes fell on its neck, doesn't make it so.
At the end of the day, the likes of Peter Facey are spouting an awful lot of evasive, illogical drivel, which, once the public is made fully aware of the issues, he will cease doing because it IS such evasive, illogical drivel. He only does so at the moment to cloud the issues and because he hopes that he may fool a few more poor innocents into not peering too deeply into matters. "Unlock Democracy"? It's nonsense, of course - another anti-English/England organisation.
Once the issues go wide, the howls of derision at what the likes of Mr Facey have been saying will discourage any further nonsense.
Our Kingdom may allow contributions from the likes of Mike Knowles and Gareth Young, really it has to if you think about it, but that does not alter the fact that its organisers have a strong anti-English bias, and couldn't give a damn about the everyday man or woman in the street.
There's space for all sorts on the blogosphere, as I'm sure you agree. All of us involved in WENAP are breadline, working class care workers/nurses and what is happening in England makes us intensely angry.
In our view, people should not be giving the likes of Our Kingdom credence as an unbiased, respectable site for debate because it is not. It allows views to be expressed about England that it would never allow to be expressed about the other UK nations (did you read the post about our lack of moral vision being the reason why we don't deserve a parliament?) and backs up the fascist "Celt" assumption which is STILL prevelant in Scotland and Wales.
Whilst people continue to believe that Our Kingdom is "spiffing" and a "good egg", and whilst it continues with its dreadful, twisted, anti-English attitudes, we shall continue to highlight the true facts.
Thanks again for writing.
While I disagree with Peter Facey and co. Our Kingdom has also allowed the CEP's Michael Knowles and Gareth Young to make contributions. I think anything that gets people talking about the English question is worthwhile. These are exactly the type of people and arguments we will come up against in persuading the British establishment so it is useful to argue against them now.
We reply:
Thank you for writing.
With all due respect, we disagree. Our Kingdom is not what it stated it would be, the likes of Anthony Barnett are actually anti-English fascists, out to smear any campaigns for equality for England as "racist" - it is not a site for fair debate with its organisers having such a strong agenda of their own. They may deny they have such an agenda, but just read through the site. The facts speak for themselves.
Because of most of its content, we don't see Our Kingdom as a quality site. Just because it declared itself as important at the outset and the chattering classes fell on its neck, doesn't make it so.
At the end of the day, the likes of Peter Facey are spouting an awful lot of evasive, illogical drivel, which, once the public is made fully aware of the issues, he will cease doing because it IS such evasive, illogical drivel. He only does so at the moment to cloud the issues and because he hopes that he may fool a few more poor innocents into not peering too deeply into matters. "Unlock Democracy"? It's nonsense, of course - another anti-English/England organisation.
Once the issues go wide, the howls of derision at what the likes of Mr Facey have been saying will discourage any further nonsense.
Our Kingdom may allow contributions from the likes of Mike Knowles and Gareth Young, really it has to if you think about it, but that does not alter the fact that its organisers have a strong anti-English bias, and couldn't give a damn about the everyday man or woman in the street.
There's space for all sorts on the blogosphere, as I'm sure you agree. All of us involved in WENAP are breadline, working class care workers/nurses and what is happening in England makes us intensely angry.
In our view, people should not be giving the likes of Our Kingdom credence as an unbiased, respectable site for debate because it is not. It allows views to be expressed about England that it would never allow to be expressed about the other UK nations (did you read the post about our lack of moral vision being the reason why we don't deserve a parliament?) and backs up the fascist "Celt" assumption which is STILL prevelant in Scotland and Wales.
Whilst people continue to believe that Our Kingdom is "spiffing" and a "good egg", and whilst it continues with its dreadful, twisted, anti-English attitudes, we shall continue to highlight the true facts.
Thanks again for writing.
Google Decides Which UK Saints to Celebrate - 2008
Ah, the first of our annual Saint's days and Google says it's OK to celebrate St David's Day, Patron Saint of Wales. It was last year, too, but it's even better this year because last year there was only a daffodil as part of the celebratory logo, this year there is also a leek.Now, which other Saints are OK in 2008? Last year it was St David and St Patrick (Ireland). But not St Andrew (Scotland) or St George (England). Let's take your bets for this year, ladies and gentlemen...
And happy St David's Day, Wales.
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Self Importance Of Our Kingdom
Recently received...
Our Kingdom immediately proclaimed itself to be something of import and seems to have been accepted as such in certain circles. Must be something to do with the class system! I read it as a boring, fascist site - which favours the UK Gov and EU over equal rights for the English.
Absolutely right. Who decides that Our Kingdom is worthy of reading and contributing to? Who thinks that Our Kingdom, which contains the downward forefinger jabbing, pop-eyed, non-democratic nonsense of the likes of Open Democracy's Peter Facey and the "Quick, write me an e-mail and make it look like it's from an English fascist!" nonsense of Anthony Barnett, is a worthy venture?
Who decides it's a site worth debating at? The site allows much fascist anti-English drivel to be published. Are the Scots, Welsh and "Cornish" Celts? Yes, says Our Kingdom! Does England lack moral vision and so not qualify for democratic rule? Yes, says our Kingdom!
People will say, "Ah, but Our Kingdom is not actually agreeing, it's simply allowing its real estate to be used to put forward these views."
Yes, but if it allowed such views to be expressed about any other nationality, the middle class prigs flocking to attend would fling up their hands in horror!
The likes of Open Democracy - come on down and jab your forefinger here and tell us what put you off the idea of democracy and parity for England, Peter Facey, and Our Kingdom - let's string together the words "English-fascist", does it give you an orgasm, Anthony Barnett? - are so far removed from the ordinary man and woman on the street.
Posing as civilised debate, they mask a heap of fascist, biased crap - all of it levelled against England.
Come down to our local high street Mr Facey, where we were discussing the need for an English Parliament this morning, downward jab your forefinger at us and tell us why regionalisation by the UK Government is best.
Get out into the real world. But then it's not really your scene, is it?
And Anthony Barnett, you already know what a rough and ready rabble the English are, don't you?
IOHO, Our Kingdom and Unlock Democracy is staffed by unreasonable, anti-English racists, to whom the so-called "Union" is God.
Lying, arrogant fuckwits.
Our Kingdom immediately proclaimed itself to be something of import and seems to have been accepted as such in certain circles. Must be something to do with the class system! I read it as a boring, fascist site - which favours the UK Gov and EU over equal rights for the English.
Absolutely right. Who decides that Our Kingdom is worthy of reading and contributing to? Who thinks that Our Kingdom, which contains the downward forefinger jabbing, pop-eyed, non-democratic nonsense of the likes of Open Democracy's Peter Facey and the "Quick, write me an e-mail and make it look like it's from an English fascist!" nonsense of Anthony Barnett, is a worthy venture?
Who decides it's a site worth debating at? The site allows much fascist anti-English drivel to be published. Are the Scots, Welsh and "Cornish" Celts? Yes, says Our Kingdom! Does England lack moral vision and so not qualify for democratic rule? Yes, says our Kingdom!
People will say, "Ah, but Our Kingdom is not actually agreeing, it's simply allowing its real estate to be used to put forward these views."
Yes, but if it allowed such views to be expressed about any other nationality, the middle class prigs flocking to attend would fling up their hands in horror!
The likes of Open Democracy - come on down and jab your forefinger here and tell us what put you off the idea of democracy and parity for England, Peter Facey, and Our Kingdom - let's string together the words "English-fascist", does it give you an orgasm, Anthony Barnett? - are so far removed from the ordinary man and woman on the street.
Posing as civilised debate, they mask a heap of fascist, biased crap - all of it levelled against England.
Come down to our local high street Mr Facey, where we were discussing the need for an English Parliament this morning, downward jab your forefinger at us and tell us why regionalisation by the UK Government is best.
Get out into the real world. But then it's not really your scene, is it?
And Anthony Barnett, you already know what a rough and ready rabble the English are, don't you?
IOHO, Our Kingdom and Unlock Democracy is staffed by unreasonable, anti-English racists, to whom the so-called "Union" is God.
Lying, arrogant fuckwits.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Neil Harding Thread - A Pearl Of Wisdom!
David, from Britologywatch, sent the comment below to the Neil Harding thread. It seemed far too interesting to be left there!
Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!
Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!
More From Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for writing again:
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
No federal system in the world would propose one federation having 85% of the population.
We already have regional government in the UK - except it is unelected quangos that are spending £130bn of our money in eight regions. Only one region is elected - (London). Scrapping these quangos and replacing them with elected assemblies needn't cost anything.
If government can work so well for Scotland and Wales with 5m and 3m populations respectively, why not the South East and North West etc, with 8m and 7m populations etc. respectively?
Look at any national organisation - regions of roughly this size are the way they organise, because it is the most efficient way of providing services. The counties are too small and England too big.
A good example is the 32 boroughs in London. Before devolution, transport policy was a disaster with petty politics between the boroughs destroying any strategic overview. Recycling and waste collestion still is poor because it needs to be organised London wide, like transport is, if it is to improve. Film makers in London for example regular restrict filming or go elsewhere because of the infamous rigmarole of having to get approval from each and every borough. How many other businesses have been put of by this needless petty bureaucratic mess?
We reply:
With a honed down UK Government to oversee matters there is no reason why England should not have a national parliament - its powers would be confined to England. There is no reason at all why it should not work.
The problem is, New Labour has already awarded NATIONAL devotion to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it is not up to the UK Government to dictate that England should not have parity, and indeed, dissolve that country. And the people of London have never voted for "regional devolution", that was never placed before them at the ballot box.
Internal governance of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, should be decided by a nationally representative English parliament. There are also issues regarding rivers, North Sea oil, etc, which Scotland is dealing with as a nation but there is no corresponding English voice, leading to accusations of unfairness. The UK Government does not see its role as looking after England's national interests in the UK.
Regional assemblies are unwanted within England, 78% voted NO in the North East, and yet you still seem to think they should be introduced, against the will of the people.
Mr Harding, to be honest we think that your views are rather changeable. We think your original article on English nationalism was dispicable, making out that we were all ignorant racists whose nation, because of diverse influences, had no right to national representation anyway.
You then acknowledge our point that all/most nations are mongrel and suggest that each English "region" should have parity with Scotland. We point out that that would mean national parliaments for each region, another correspondent points out to us that each parliament should cover only five million people, and of course each budget must match Scotland. If not, Scotland would still be getting preferential treatment as a NATION.
In this latest e-mail, you revert to the tried and trusted Nu Labour chant of "regional assemblies". You seem to have ignored our previous points that these regions are unwanted and unvoted for, that 78% in the North East voted NO to regionalisation, and that several recent polls, including one for the BBC (here), show that over 60% of the electorate want an English parliament.
It is not the UK Government's right to restore democratic national representation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and dissolve England. You also ignore our point about Gordon Brown having no mandate to govern England, the fact that much of his government's legislation does not apply to his own devolved constituents with their own devolved, national government.
It is up to an English parliament to decide to on the internal government of England, be it regions, counties, both or neither, as we have said before.
The other option, of course, is to dissolve the national bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, abolish the Barnett Formula, and create a different system of regionalisation, which does not recognise the nations, or have a unitary system again.
That will never happen.
And England deserves and needs parity - national representation within the UK on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If the UK does break up, that's one of those things.
But we see no real reason why it should.
And it's no reason to deny the people of England a voice.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Scottish Racist
Alfie carries news of a Church of Scotland cleric, spreading words of peace and love about the English to impressionable young minds in a Scots primary school following last night's earthquake in England:
He stood up, dressed in all his Christian finery, dog collar and regulation comb-over - and delivered his talk to a hall packed with impressionable young minds and their parents. He mentioned current events, spreading his Christian message throughout, weaving the Christian virtues of forgiveness, understanding and friendship throughout the speech.
He wound up with the story about last night's earthquake in Lincolnshire, England. He said that the 'quake was felt right across England and that there are initial reports of some structural damage.. He finished with the quote - "It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people"....
Read the full story here.
He stood up, dressed in all his Christian finery, dog collar and regulation comb-over - and delivered his talk to a hall packed with impressionable young minds and their parents. He mentioned current events, spreading his Christian message throughout, weaving the Christian virtues of forgiveness, understanding and friendship throughout the speech.
He wound up with the story about last night's earthquake in Lincolnshire, England. He said that the 'quake was felt right across England and that there are initial reports of some structural damage.. He finished with the quote - "It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people"....
Read the full story here.
Our Kingdom Again: "Ominously" Anthony Barnett
Anthony Barnett writes a strange piece about Janet Daley's Telegraph article on defining Britishness.
Well, it's strange for those who are not used to his little ways on Our Kingdom.
Mr Barnett runs straight down the comments thread and grabs hold of a comment beginning:
I do so agree with those who prefer to be English rather than British. It makes me feel very resentful when I hear discussions where people are described as Asians, African, Afro-Caribeans and we are described as White (often by foreigners to these shores)I frequently point out that White is not a nationality and that my nationality is English.
And then Mr Barnett, of course, immediately decides that the writer is a racist.
But doesn't the problem actually lie elsewhere? Isn't it the UK Government which suppresses English national identity, whilst encouraging others? Isn't it the UK Government which brings a person's colour in to official form filling? Are you "White British" or "Black British"?
Perhaps it would be better to ask if people regard themselves as English or British? Because the array of tick boxes and the absence of an "English" option tick box is bewildering. Or perhaps the UK Government could follow what is happening elsewhere and list options such as "Jewish-English"?
Whatever, the Government's attempts to divide and rule and its refusal to recognise England and Englishness are what is at the root of this.
I wouldn't wrap me chips in "Our Kingdom"!
Well, it's strange for those who are not used to his little ways on Our Kingdom.
Mr Barnett runs straight down the comments thread and grabs hold of a comment beginning:
I do so agree with those who prefer to be English rather than British. It makes me feel very resentful when I hear discussions where people are described as Asians, African, Afro-Caribeans and we are described as White (often by foreigners to these shores)I frequently point out that White is not a nationality and that my nationality is English.
And then Mr Barnett, of course, immediately decides that the writer is a racist.
But doesn't the problem actually lie elsewhere? Isn't it the UK Government which suppresses English national identity, whilst encouraging others? Isn't it the UK Government which brings a person's colour in to official form filling? Are you "White British" or "Black British"?
Perhaps it would be better to ask if people regard themselves as English or British? Because the array of tick boxes and the absence of an "English" option tick box is bewildering. Or perhaps the UK Government could follow what is happening elsewhere and list options such as "Jewish-English"?
Whatever, the Government's attempts to divide and rule and its refusal to recognise England and Englishness are what is at the root of this.
I wouldn't wrap me chips in "Our Kingdom"!
Our Kingdom Is Thrilled!
I had to smile when I read this on Our Kingdom. How thrilling for its priggish, anti-English/England writers that a film apparently depicting skinheads in the 1980s has made best "British" film!
"YES! Well done, Shane!" Quick, file under England, fascism...
You can just imagine the writer, almost pooing his usually pristine geeky knickers to get that online.
A couple of points:
The skinhead thing was up and running well before the 1980s as was football hooliganism - fans were being penned in in the early 1970s.
Old Labour voter, that was me, hated Thatcher, but this constant priggish nonsense about the 1980s is very wearing. Just for a change, couldn't it have been set in the just as grim 70s?
The other point is the constant anti-English bias of "Our Kingdom". The makers of the "This Is England" film were, I suggest, very ignorant in trying to portray English nationalism in this light in the modern day and age.
This is the age of the West Lothian Question, a non-representative PM ruling England, health apartheid, etc. It would be refreshing to see something set in the modern day, highlighting the current forms of English nationalism and the reasons for it.
We have a government which habitually discriminates against every man, woman and child in England, valuing Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish lives far higher than ours.
And yet some film makers and "Our Kingdom" are anxious to promote English nationalism as it was in the 60s/70s/80s.
Great.
I do not recommend "Our Kingdom". Sometimes I suspect that the people behind it are all clones of Tristram Fourmile.
Actually, it strikes me that England was used as a negative (remember "Oi! For England"?) and Britain as a positive even back in the '80s. UK PLC brainwashing was obviously up and running. But, after the devolution scares of the '70s, nobody was going to examine Scots' racism. Which is great. And probably contributes to the way the arrogant, non-insightful likes of Gordon Brown strut around Westminster now.
And other little things.
Like health apartheid.
"YES! Well done, Shane!" Quick, file under England, fascism...
You can just imagine the writer, almost pooing his usually pristine geeky knickers to get that online.
A couple of points:
The skinhead thing was up and running well before the 1980s as was football hooliganism - fans were being penned in in the early 1970s.
Old Labour voter, that was me, hated Thatcher, but this constant priggish nonsense about the 1980s is very wearing. Just for a change, couldn't it have been set in the just as grim 70s?
The other point is the constant anti-English bias of "Our Kingdom". The makers of the "This Is England" film were, I suggest, very ignorant in trying to portray English nationalism in this light in the modern day and age.
This is the age of the West Lothian Question, a non-representative PM ruling England, health apartheid, etc. It would be refreshing to see something set in the modern day, highlighting the current forms of English nationalism and the reasons for it.
We have a government which habitually discriminates against every man, woman and child in England, valuing Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish lives far higher than ours.
And yet some film makers and "Our Kingdom" are anxious to promote English nationalism as it was in the 60s/70s/80s.
Great.
I do not recommend "Our Kingdom". Sometimes I suspect that the people behind it are all clones of Tristram Fourmile.
Actually, it strikes me that England was used as a negative (remember "Oi! For England"?) and Britain as a positive even back in the '80s. UK PLC brainwashing was obviously up and running. But, after the devolution scares of the '70s, nobody was going to examine Scots' racism. Which is great. And probably contributes to the way the arrogant, non-insightful likes of Gordon Brown strut around Westminster now.
And other little things.
Like health apartheid.
Neil Harding
Thanks to Neil Harding for e-mailing us regarding his racist comments about "mongrel" England. Below, Mr Harding withdraws some of his comments, perhaps we, and all nations, are "hybrid"?
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.
Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.
'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.
An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?
We reply...
Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.
The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!
Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.
No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.
Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.
As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!
We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?
Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.
The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!
New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.
England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.
Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.
UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.
But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.
CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Neil Harding - The English Are Ignorant, Impure Mongrels Who Do Not Qualify For Democratic Rule
How odd that Neil Harding, of Brighton Regency Labour Party, thinks that the English should not have a national parliament because they are not pure enough.
“There is a certain irony to nationalist calls for an English ‘parliament’ and their calls to leave the EU - to be ruled by the ‘English’, when in fact the public school dominated ruling classes in London are probably more French than those in Brussels in terms of their ancestry”
Mr Harding then goes on to cite things that (apparently) arrived here from abroad and just how "mongrelised" we are.
This is apparently justification for us not having a say on the EU or having our own national parliament.
We're not "pure" enough!
Mr Harding has no such difficulties with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course.
We doubt the accuracy of some of Mr Harding's statements, but we fully accept that England is a mongrel nation. Aren't all/most nations?
The UK Government/EU regions are not based on, nor correspond to, ancient Anglo Saxon kingdoms as Mr Harding states either.
Neil Harding's argument all boils down to the fact that we're not clever enough, innovative enough or PURE enough to qualify for democratic rule.
Neil Harding - fascist!
Big hat tips to The Secret Person, via The England Project.
“There is a certain irony to nationalist calls for an English ‘parliament’ and their calls to leave the EU - to be ruled by the ‘English’, when in fact the public school dominated ruling classes in London are probably more French than those in Brussels in terms of their ancestry”
Mr Harding then goes on to cite things that (apparently) arrived here from abroad and just how "mongrelised" we are.
This is apparently justification for us not having a say on the EU or having our own national parliament.
We're not "pure" enough!
Mr Harding has no such difficulties with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course.
We doubt the accuracy of some of Mr Harding's statements, but we fully accept that England is a mongrel nation. Aren't all/most nations?
The UK Government/EU regions are not based on, nor correspond to, ancient Anglo Saxon kingdoms as Mr Harding states either.
Neil Harding's argument all boils down to the fact that we're not clever enough, innovative enough or PURE enough to qualify for democratic rule.
Neil Harding - fascist!
Big hat tips to The Secret Person, via The England Project.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Christine Grahame, MSP - Another Liar?
It doesn't really matter how it's achieved, but Scotland is determined to have what is not rightfully Scotland's to have - and Christine Grahame, MSP, is one of the ring leaders.Christine has been misleading the Daily Express concerning the maritime border between England and Scotland. In the 1960s, the border, which pointed upwards in line with the land border and international convention, was tweaked, ceding English North sea oil and gas to Scotland. As we were a "UK" and resources were to be shared equally, it was felt not to matter a jot. The UK Government opted not to consult the English.
Any changes since have not returned the border to its original state, but Christine Grahame is trying to make out that further tweaking in 1999 stole waters from the Scots! This is very rich indeed as that particular tweaking did nothing to restore any where near England's rightful share of the gas and oil.
Ms Grahame is trying to make out that the 1960s alteration, carried out without consulting the English, is the "historic border".
Oh dear.
And the Daily Express believes her.
Oh dear.
It could be that Christine Grahame does not do research. Or it could be that she is a simply a liar.
But whatever she is, she does Scotland's reputation no good at all.
Read Ms Grahame's spinnings on the Daily Express site - here.
UPDATE - RECEIVED, 1/3/08:
Sue Campbell:
Born in England, but more Scottish than day old haggis, Christine Grahame uses her place of birth to try and make out that her actions are justified and that she's truly fair-minded. In reality, she's a conniving anti-English... er... MSP!
The SNP are anxious to use her to front their most dishonest endeavours, because then they can say: "But she was born in England! She's English! She has no axe to grind!"
No she isn't English - and yes she does have an axe to grind. She hates the English. I was born in Scotland and my Dad's a Scot, but believe me nationality's really a state of mind and I'm English!
Berwick-Upon-Tweed: Scots Out To Grab More English Oil And Gas?
It just occurs to us sitting here at WENAP Towers that the disgraceful attempt by the Scottish Parliament to bribe Berwick-Upon-Tweed into joining Scotland's corrupt elite of plenty, could be an attempt to steal more of England's North Sea oil and gas.What happened in the 1960s was remarkable: without a word of consultation with the English, the UK Government moved the maritime border, ensuring that a large amount of English North Sea oil and gas was gifted to the Scots. It was seen as not mattering as we were a "United Kingdom" and resources were supposed to be equally shared.
Now, Alex Salmond makes hay with the border, claims all the North Sea oil and gas for Scotland, and tries to hide the border's tweaking from interested onlookers, going so far as to conceal the facts on "national" UK TV.
The Scottish Parliament's attempts to bribe Berwick-Upon-Tweed (and remember, voters in the TV referendum were voting to become part of Scotland not because they wanted to be Scots, but because they wanted the free care, cancer medications, etc, available in Scotland due to subsidies from England via the Barnett Formula) are probably, no more no less, an attempt to steal more of England's resources. Won't this land grab result in a corresponding maritime border grab?
What a shitty little country Scotland is becoming.
Monday, February 18, 2008
ITV Tonight: Alex Salmond Lies About North Sea Oil
From the CEP News Blog:
The Tonight programme on ITV1 tonight investigated the differences between the funding and treatment of English and Scottish people including a mock referendum in Berwick on Tweed asking whether Berwickers wanted to remain in England or become part of Scotland.
It’s rare to get this kind of documentary on any channel, let alone ITV1 and it was quite well done. The programme concentrated on the spending differences - the Scots get an average of £1,500 per head per year more than the English - and the differences in benefits they get as a result such as not having to pay university top-up fees, getting free cancer treatment that the English aren’t entitled to, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, etc. And they did it without trying to justify it which is a novelty.
The only downside was that they didn’t counter the tired old argument of “oor oil”. Alex Salmond said - more than once - that Scotland was subsidising Britain with North Sea oil and gas revenues and that it would be unfair to cut public spending in Scotland whilst the UK Treasury (in London, he always makes a point of saying in London) “continues to drain North Sea oil and gas revenues”.
North Sea oil and gas, despite Alex Salmond’s big plans, is not all rightfully Scottish. In the 60’s the maritime border was moved, in contravention of international maritime law, to extend along a line of longtitude instead of being an extension of the land border. The English were not asked if they were happy to cede their waters to Scotland and lose the oil and gas fields contained therein. Devolution for Scotland (but never for England of course) was on the cards back in the 60’s so it is a reasonable assumption that British MPs took this decision in the knowledge that Scotland would claim the waters once it gained fiscal autonomy. Robbing Peter England to pay Paul Scotland.
Read it all here.
Alex Salmond really is a liar of the highest order, but even if what he said were true, it is totally against the ethos of a United Kingdom that resources should be retained by one particular region in this manner. It also shows just how conniving and uncaring the SNP have become.
Salmond is another shameful item to add to an ever increasing list for poor old Scotland. What with Brown this side of the border and Salmond that side, it seems that conniving twisters are holding all the cards in the so-called UK today.
Where does Salmond get his figures from? Even if the maritime border was left in its current incorrect state, not all North Sea Oil and Gas belongs to Scotland, and an article in the Guardian last year stated that even if ALL North Sea Oil and Gas revenues were given to Scotland, the country still would not break even -
Tax revenues from Scotland almost match the country's £49.2bn a year public spending - although only if all North Sea oil and gas revenues are attributed to Edinburgh, a controversial allocation.
Read it all here!
More WENAP material on the subject of North Sea Oil here.
The Tonight programme on ITV1 tonight investigated the differences between the funding and treatment of English and Scottish people including a mock referendum in Berwick on Tweed asking whether Berwickers wanted to remain in England or become part of Scotland.
It’s rare to get this kind of documentary on any channel, let alone ITV1 and it was quite well done. The programme concentrated on the spending differences - the Scots get an average of £1,500 per head per year more than the English - and the differences in benefits they get as a result such as not having to pay university top-up fees, getting free cancer treatment that the English aren’t entitled to, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, etc. And they did it without trying to justify it which is a novelty.
The only downside was that they didn’t counter the tired old argument of “oor oil”. Alex Salmond said - more than once - that Scotland was subsidising Britain with North Sea oil and gas revenues and that it would be unfair to cut public spending in Scotland whilst the UK Treasury (in London, he always makes a point of saying in London) “continues to drain North Sea oil and gas revenues”.
North Sea oil and gas, despite Alex Salmond’s big plans, is not all rightfully Scottish. In the 60’s the maritime border was moved, in contravention of international maritime law, to extend along a line of longtitude instead of being an extension of the land border. The English were not asked if they were happy to cede their waters to Scotland and lose the oil and gas fields contained therein. Devolution for Scotland (but never for England of course) was on the cards back in the 60’s so it is a reasonable assumption that British MPs took this decision in the knowledge that Scotland would claim the waters once it gained fiscal autonomy. Robbing Peter England to pay Paul Scotland.
Read it all here.
Alex Salmond really is a liar of the highest order, but even if what he said were true, it is totally against the ethos of a United Kingdom that resources should be retained by one particular region in this manner. It also shows just how conniving and uncaring the SNP have become.
Salmond is another shameful item to add to an ever increasing list for poor old Scotland. What with Brown this side of the border and Salmond that side, it seems that conniving twisters are holding all the cards in the so-called UK today.
Where does Salmond get his figures from? Even if the maritime border was left in its current incorrect state, not all North Sea Oil and Gas belongs to Scotland, and an article in the Guardian last year stated that even if ALL North Sea Oil and Gas revenues were given to Scotland, the country still would not break even -
Tax revenues from Scotland almost match the country's £49.2bn a year public spending - although only if all North Sea oil and gas revenues are attributed to Edinburgh, a controversial allocation.
Read it all here!
More WENAP material on the subject of North Sea Oil here.
Campaign For An English Parliament Press Release: The English National Health Service Is Losing Millions To Wales
The Health Service Journal reports that diverging health policies in England and Wales are causing English hospitals to lose millions of pounds.
The Welsh Assembly government has instructed local health boards, including those that use English hospitals, not to pay for elective treatment unless it is authorised in advance. Even then they will only pay a negotiated price rather than the tariff under payment by results, the system by which English hospitals are required to charge, although cross-border agreements have established that the Welsh commissioners should pay in this way.
Separation of the nations of the UK by governance, called devolution, constantly works against the interests of England. Funding across the UK, decided by the British government, ensures that England (£6,762) gets the lowest funding per head and Wales (£7,666) is more generously funded. The Welsh Assembly Government has used this subsidy, paid for by English taxpayers, to abolish prescription charges but refuses to pay its due to the financially strapped English Health Service that its citizens use.
Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament asks “how many English patients’ health is being put at risk by the actions of the Welsh Commissioners?” and “When will so-called English MPs fight against this constitutional discrimination against their constituents”
The only way this discrimination can be addressed is by a dedicated Parliament for England.
End of Press Release.
For more details and added comment contact:
Michael Knowles: Head of CEP Media Union
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
or
Scilla Cullen, CEP Chairman,
Tel: 01438 83315 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
The Welsh Assembly government has instructed local health boards, including those that use English hospitals, not to pay for elective treatment unless it is authorised in advance. Even then they will only pay a negotiated price rather than the tariff under payment by results, the system by which English hospitals are required to charge, although cross-border agreements have established that the Welsh commissioners should pay in this way.
Separation of the nations of the UK by governance, called devolution, constantly works against the interests of England. Funding across the UK, decided by the British government, ensures that England (£6,762) gets the lowest funding per head and Wales (£7,666) is more generously funded. The Welsh Assembly Government has used this subsidy, paid for by English taxpayers, to abolish prescription charges but refuses to pay its due to the financially strapped English Health Service that its citizens use.
Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament asks “how many English patients’ health is being put at risk by the actions of the Welsh Commissioners?” and “When will so-called English MPs fight against this constitutional discrimination against their constituents”
The only way this discrimination can be addressed is by a dedicated Parliament for England.
End of Press Release.
For more details and added comment contact:
Michael Knowles: Head of CEP Media Union
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
or
Scilla Cullen, CEP Chairman,
Tel: 01438 83315 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Unlock Democracy? As Far As England Is Concerned, Let's Keep It Locked, Says Peter Facey
"Are you a Celtic nationalist? Ooh, may I lick your bottom? You're English? Well, you can get stuffed, you mongrel!"Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy:
I don’t see why central government, whether UK or English, should control issues that are local or regional in nature.
Basically, Mr Facey sees regionalisation of England at the behest of Scots and Welsh MPs as something worthy of prioritising. A representative national parliament for England? No, not important.
But surely democracy is about representation, surely a representative government should be overseeing England's future internal governance? Not important, says the surprisingly undemocratic Mr Facey.
However, in good old fascist "Our Kingdom" style, Mr Facey pauses to lick the arses of "pure Celtic" nationalists:
"I personally have never argued that a region like London or the North East is the same as Wales or Scotland, because they are part of a wider nation. With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character..."
I personally have friends in Cornwall who view themselves as English and Cornwall as a county, Mr Facey. Don't their views count? Are you just concerned to get a perceived persecuted minority on your side, so that Mr So Called Pure-Celt of the Lizard will applaud you?
Cornwall needs a referendum to decide its future, as does the whole of England in fact.
Mr Facey is keen to see things are good locally. But how can they be when the decisions about how things are organised locally are out of our politicians' hands? When "our" politicians are never called to account for their actions as regards England anyway?
And what about health apartheid? The West Lothian Question? The Barnett Formula?
What motivates people like Peter Facey? What gives?
Unlock Democracy? Quite the reverse as far as England is concerned.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Berwick-Upon-Tweed Votes To Join The Scots Elite - And Shits On England
Residents in the English town of Berwick-upon-Tweed have voted in a TV poll to"re-join Scotland".
The town has changed nations at least thirteen times in the dim-and-distant past but has been part of England for centuries.
To quote the BBC online article:
According to a poll by a TV company, 60% of those who responded wanted the town to be administered by Scotland.
Better financed public services, including free personal health care for the elderly, were the main reasons.
The injustice being done to England matters not. There's no sense of loyalty or solidarity. Let's go and join the elite, say the fine, upstanding folk of Berwick. Fine. Goodbye, Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The current unfair circumstances cannot last much longer and the dear wee town may soon find itself facing a very different situation in Scotland as England fights its way to equality or the UK splits up.
Whatever happens, Berwick's "I'm all right, Jack" attitude should not be forgotten and any vote carried out to join Scotland should be binding for at least a century.
The town has changed nations at least thirteen times in the dim-and-distant past but has been part of England for centuries.
To quote the BBC online article:
According to a poll by a TV company, 60% of those who responded wanted the town to be administered by Scotland.
Better financed public services, including free personal health care for the elderly, were the main reasons.
The injustice being done to England matters not. There's no sense of loyalty or solidarity. Let's go and join the elite, say the fine, upstanding folk of Berwick. Fine. Goodbye, Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The current unfair circumstances cannot last much longer and the dear wee town may soon find itself facing a very different situation in Scotland as England fights its way to equality or the UK splits up.
Whatever happens, Berwick's "I'm all right, Jack" attitude should not be forgotten and any vote carried out to join Scotland should be binding for at least a century.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
CEP Press Release: England Outraged By Scottish Attempt To Grab English Territory
The members of the Campaign for an English Parliament will resist with might and main the attempt being made by the Scottish Nationalist Party to grab Berwick on Tweed which has been part of England since the 13th century - over 700 years- and make it part of Scotland.
Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame supported by fellow SNP members is lodging a vote in the Scottish Parliament in support of this land-grab.
Already the Scottish Parliament has claimed rights over all English rivers such as the River Till in Northumberland which flow into the River Tweed, even though the Tweed is the boundary river between the two nations of England and Scotland and belongs to neither. And the Scottish Parliament has been able to move southwards the boundary between England and Scotland which till devolution has always run along the very centre of the Solway Firth. To date the United Kingdom Government with its Scottish Prime Minister and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to stop these successive land grabs.
"The Scots are stirring up a hornets' nest of real trouble within the United Kingdom with these policies. And we will take them on," stated Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign. "The people of England will not put up with any more of it. Already Wales has been given the English county of Monmouthshire and even a part of the city of Chester in what is the county of Cheshire. It is already intolerable that devolution for Scotland has granted it huge benefits denied to England such as free university education, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, as much as £1500 more spent on each Scot per annum than on any person in England and access to cancer drugs not obtainable in England. What the Scots are doing is sowing the seeds of real anger and dissension within the Union. They are sowing the wind. If they try to grab Berwick, it will be the Union that will reap the whirlwind.'
Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame supported by fellow SNP members is lodging a vote in the Scottish Parliament in support of this land-grab.
Already the Scottish Parliament has claimed rights over all English rivers such as the River Till in Northumberland which flow into the River Tweed, even though the Tweed is the boundary river between the two nations of England and Scotland and belongs to neither. And the Scottish Parliament has been able to move southwards the boundary between England and Scotland which till devolution has always run along the very centre of the Solway Firth. To date the United Kingdom Government with its Scottish Prime Minister and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to stop these successive land grabs.
"The Scots are stirring up a hornets' nest of real trouble within the United Kingdom with these policies. And we will take them on," stated Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign. "The people of England will not put up with any more of it. Already Wales has been given the English county of Monmouthshire and even a part of the city of Chester in what is the county of Cheshire. It is already intolerable that devolution for Scotland has granted it huge benefits denied to England such as free university education, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, as much as £1500 more spent on each Scot per annum than on any person in England and access to cancer drugs not obtainable in England. What the Scots are doing is sowing the seeds of real anger and dissension within the Union. They are sowing the wind. If they try to grab Berwick, it will be the Union that will reap the whirlwind.'
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Daily Mail Deceives Public Over Caroline Flint's Role
I noticed whilst reading this Daily Mail article by James Chapman -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
that the paper has not mentioned ANYWHERE that Caroline Flint's authority is not UK-wide - that she is only housing minister for England.
Several people that I know of wrote to the Mail yesterday pointing this out, as I did myself, but none of the e-mails have been published. Today I have sent this:
Ms Flint is not responsible for housing policy in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, which have their own devolved governments/assemblies. So why isn't this pointed out? This newspaper's staff are either trying to deceive the public into believing that devolution has made no difference, and so bolster up New Labour's Unionist lies, or your so-called "journalists" are simply thick.
Whatever the truth, this article is garbage, the fact that Caroline Flint only has control of England's housing should be pointed out as a matter of course.
I have written before with this point, but you haven't publish it, and I am now advertising that fact on my blog.
It really is time the corrupt British Press was MADE to tell the truth about devolution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
that the paper has not mentioned ANYWHERE that Caroline Flint's authority is not UK-wide - that she is only housing minister for England.
Several people that I know of wrote to the Mail yesterday pointing this out, as I did myself, but none of the e-mails have been published. Today I have sent this:
Ms Flint is not responsible for housing policy in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, which have their own devolved governments/assemblies. So why isn't this pointed out? This newspaper's staff are either trying to deceive the public into believing that devolution has made no difference, and so bolster up New Labour's Unionist lies, or your so-called "journalists" are simply thick.
Whatever the truth, this article is garbage, the fact that Caroline Flint only has control of England's housing should be pointed out as a matter of course.
I have written before with this point, but you haven't publish it, and I am now advertising that fact on my blog.
It really is time the corrupt British Press was MADE to tell the truth about devolution.
Supporting People (Communities and Local Government)
The recent outrageous comments from Caroline Flint, UK Government Housing Minister responsible for housing in England only, has set us thinking. The most terrible things are happening to social housing across England. Take the vulnerable: all involved on this blog have worked in registered community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities. In recent years, tenants of these homes were sold a downright lie by this government: become deregistered, leave the safety of being a Social Services monitored establishment, transfer to the auspices of a government agency called “Supporting People”, and you shall have more, lots more, financial input, including staffing, they were told.These people are highly vulnerable and were basically told a whopping great lie.
Many community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities are now falling into disrepair as maintainence budgets are slashed; staffing hours too have been cut - in some cases up to 50%, and vulnerable adults used to and IN NEED OF 24 hour staff support must now spend the night with no staff on the premises.
Supporting People covers its actions well, pretending to be interested in “encouraging independence”. All of us at WENAP have been involved in social care work since the early 1980s and that has always been the aim. But under Supporting People we find this “aim” is now a thin cover for savage cutbacks.
Staff are being forced to take on duties above and beyond their training, salary scale and job descriptions as social care agencies compete for tenders on a vicious open market where the cheapest bid wins - and to hell with standards.
And staff have it written into their contracts that any speaking out will face disciplinary action and dismissal.
And all this has happened not under Thatcher, not under Major, but under Blair and Brown.
As old Labour voters and care workers we are bloody angry.
Visit Supporting People - http://www.spkweb.org.uk/
We’re absolutely committed to exposing this corrupt UK government agency, which is wreaking havoc across England, for what it is. You may never have heard of it before, but now that you have please keep your eyes and your ears open. Do not believe the facade. If you have a relative or friend in a social care home provided by a housing society or local authority, please monitor standards. Question the staff and management closely about anything you are unhappy about. Encourage your friend/relative to speak up. Was 24 hour "sleep-in" cover previously provided by staff? Has it been cut or is it about to be? In your opinion, are the people in this home of the state of mind/physical ability to be left alone over night?
What about decoration/maintenance/cleaning standards/furnishings?
Many of the people living in these homes have been institutionalised for long periods of their lives and are unused to speaking up for themselves, and so this government, via Supporting People, is making hay.
Please join us in fighting to restore decent levels of care and support to those in need of it in community homes across England and bring about an end to Supporting People.
Shout loud about it. Ask questions. refuse to be misled. This is one of our anti-English UK Government's harbingers of evil which has so far managed to slip underneath the search beams of those seeking justice and parity for England in the modern day UK.
Let's change that.
Now.
Please.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Caroline Flint
Caroline Flint, new Housing Minister in her "I Love The 1960s" trousers. She's another of NuLabour's smug twisters and liars. They've got a million of 'em!Has everybody seen THIS?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512354&in_page_id=1770
Whatever you think of the concept (we personally think it stinks) you have to admire Ms Flint’s brazen attitude in making out that her remit covers the whole of the UK and that she is seeking a “national consensus”. Meanwhile, we must pity the moronic tendencies of Adam Sampson, chief executive of Shelter, who seems unaware that it is not “Britain’s unemployed” who are the subject of this latest proposal, but ENGLAND’S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)