It is my grave misfortune to hear BBC Radio 1 once a week. Not my choice. During my weekly "treats", I've heard Edith Bowman twittering on about Scotland and the "bagpipes" - whilst never once referring to England. I've heard brain-dead DJs twittering on about the thrill of having jelly beans in the studio. I've heard many re-hashes of 1980s songs, and (post) modern songs that sound like they're straight from the 1960s and even, occasionally (God help us) the 1970s.
And today I heard Scotland The Brave played on the bagpipes.
With all its current biased Scots content, the BBC needs to drop the first "B" and replace it with an "S".
It could stand for "Scottish" or it could stand for "Shit".
Either would be appropriate.
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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
CEP: 2000 Labour Party delegates to applaud the negation of the English Democratic Tradition
2000 labour party delegates got to their feet in Brighton in the county of Sussex to applaud the repudiation by Gordon Brown of the very fundamentals of England's democratic tradition.
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
Contact:
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Yesterday afternoon the delegates to the Labour Party Conference -Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Peers, Party officials and 2000 delegates from across the United Kingdom got up and clapped and shouted their approval as Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire in Scotland, announced measure after measure of new legislation for England, and only for England, in defiance of the very fundamentals of what the people of England founded their parliament for 800 years ago.
The CEP National Council has circulated its membership with a statement on this matter.
'Gordon Brown announced new legislation to place new teenage mothers in hostels rather than council houses; to provide free personal care for the very elderly in their homes, to limit pub opening hours, to control broken familes unable to control their children, to bring in additional controls on wild disruptive youngsters, to provide 250,000 free childcare places and to delay the introduction of ID cards. Very many people will indeed agree with these measures. That is not an issue that the CEP as such involves itself with. The CEP is concerned with democracy for England. When England gets its own parlament, its parliament will concern itself wholeheartedly with the welfare of the people of England.
'These measures concern matters which affect England only. The fundamental nature of English democracy as founded with the English Parliament in the 13th century and developed by the people of England over the past 800 years is that it is representative democracy. Law makers are accountable to the people who elect them. They are elected to be their representatives in their parliament. But Brown is not elected by any English voters. He is not accountable to any English voter for any of these specific measures. His action, and the conference applause for it, is a repudiation of this most fundamental aspect of the English democratic tradition.
Contact:
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cancer Research UK - Sexist And Uncaring When It Comes To Men...
Chris has just fired off an e-mail to Cancer Research UK:
I am writing to inform you that as male, I will no longer be supporting Cancer Research UK as I believe that it is a sexist, perhaps even misandrist, organisation.
As breast cancer numbers continue to fall, Cancer Research chooses to display highly sexist posters on buses in England. The one I saw today was apparently about "joining the fight for women's survival", and displayed a picture of two women hitting a man with boxing gloves. Was the man supposed to represent cancer?
What has happened to men's health issues? A small minority of men also contract breast cancer. But that highly relevant piece of information is well tucked away on your site. Surely, trumpeting breast cancer as a purely female health issue is failing in your duty of care?
Meanwhile, prostate cancer is on the rise, but there are no similar "men's survival" campaigns within Cancer Research.
WHY?
Your campaign is horrifically skewed and biased, the imagery of the two women hitting the man on the poster displayed on the bus was pathetic and I cannot make any further donations to such a sexist and uncaring organisation.
I will keep my eyes and ears open for any non-sexist cancer research campaigns, and in the meantime will be directing any further donations I may have made to your organisation to the British Heart Foundation.
Cancer Research UK joins such luminaries as that highly renowned misandrist Harriet Harman by winning our Sexist Slime Of The Month Award.
Richly deserved for an organisation which goes all out to cater for the health of the female gender, and wilfully short-changes the male - even promoting anti-male imagery as part of its feminine health awareness campaigns.
I am writing to inform you that as male, I will no longer be supporting Cancer Research UK as I believe that it is a sexist, perhaps even misandrist, organisation.
As breast cancer numbers continue to fall, Cancer Research chooses to display highly sexist posters on buses in England. The one I saw today was apparently about "joining the fight for women's survival", and displayed a picture of two women hitting a man with boxing gloves. Was the man supposed to represent cancer?
What has happened to men's health issues? A small minority of men also contract breast cancer. But that highly relevant piece of information is well tucked away on your site. Surely, trumpeting breast cancer as a purely female health issue is failing in your duty of care?
Meanwhile, prostate cancer is on the rise, but there are no similar "men's survival" campaigns within Cancer Research.
WHY?
Your campaign is horrifically skewed and biased, the imagery of the two women hitting the man on the poster displayed on the bus was pathetic and I cannot make any further donations to such a sexist and uncaring organisation.
I will keep my eyes and ears open for any non-sexist cancer research campaigns, and in the meantime will be directing any further donations I may have made to your organisation to the British Heart Foundation.
Cancer Research UK joins such luminaries as that highly renowned misandrist Harriet Harman by winning our Sexist Slime Of The Month Award.
Richly deserved for an organisation which goes all out to cater for the health of the female gender, and wilfully short-changes the male - even promoting anti-male imagery as part of its feminine health awareness campaigns.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Vince Cable - Lazy-Minded MP, Repeats Old Claptrap About The Poll Tax...
Vince Cable - Liberal Democrat MPIt always galls us to stand up for Margaret Thatcher on this blog. But when lazy-minded politicians like Vince Cable roll out old and hate-fuelling untruths, word for word, well, we really have to say something!
Momentum built up in the Eighties, especially when Mrs Thatcher made Scots the guinea pigs for the Poll Tax
Poll Tax "Guinea pigs"? Not again?! Thatcher didn't make Scots "guinea pigs" for the Tax. We couldn't stick Mrs T, but it was George Younger, Scottish Secretary of State, who asked for the Tax a year early in Scotland because he didn't think the Scots should have to wait for the English!
Read more here.
Several of us involved with this blog were actually members of English "STOP THE POLL TAX" campaigns from 1988 onwards - and costly preparations were already well underway for the planned introduction of the Tax in England and Wales.
Now, surely, if the Scots were to be used as "guinea pigs" for the Poll Tax, the preparations in England and Wales would have been put on hold, and surely it would take rather more than one year to prove the Tax's worth or otherwise? Wouldn't there be various wrinkles to be ironed out? Wouldn't introducing the Tax in Scotland in 1989 and holding off on any decision regarding England and Wales until around 1992 have been more logical if the "guinea pig" scenario was true?
AND the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scotsman - Douglas Mason.
Vince Cable's Daily Mail article is a very shoddy piece of writing. Simply recycling old 'victimhood' claptrap is a bore.
Vince Cable's Daily Mail article is a very shoddy piece of writing. Simply recycling old 'victimhood' claptrap is a bore.
The Scots are always so innocent, aren't they?
And England comes nowhere in Mr Cable's deliberations, as usual.
Indeed, at the end of the article, there is a list of relevant people and places:
People:
Alex Salmond,
Gordon Brown,
Vince Cable,
David Cameron,
Fred Goodwin
Places:
Edinburgh,
London,
Glasgow,
Wales,
Canada,
Germany,
Libya,
Scotland,
Northern Ireland,
United Kingdom
Organisations:
Scottish Parliament
But no sign of England.
Of course.
And England comes nowhere in Mr Cable's deliberations, as usual.
Indeed, at the end of the article, there is a list of relevant people and places:
People:
Alex Salmond,
Gordon Brown,
Vince Cable,
David Cameron,
Fred Goodwin
Places:
Edinburgh,
London,
Glasgow,
Wales,
Canada,
Germany,
Libya,
Scotland,
Northern Ireland,
United Kingdom
Organisations:
Scottish Parliament
But no sign of England.
Of course.
Monday, September 07, 2009
CEP: England? No. Scotland? Yes. BBC bias strikes again
A season of programmes on Scotland's history and culture tells of the delight the BBC takes in the celebration of Scotland. It would never do the same for England.
'The default position for the BBC when it comes to anything to do with England is not to mention it, and certainly it is not to celebrate anything English if the BBC can possibly avoid it. Its default position with Scotland on the other hand is precisely the opposite. The BBC celebrates Scotland and everything Scottish at every opportunity.' That is the CEP's considered comment on the BBC's TV series of programmes 'This is Scotland' which starts this weekend.' in which the BBC will celebrate and examine aspects of Scottish culture, art, film-making, heritage, landscape and psyche.'. (BBC Press Release) .
'A Portrait Of Scotland discusses the artists and paintings that have reflected the changing face of Scotland since the Reformation, The Fighting Scots reviews the history of Scots in the British Army. Scotland On Screen celebrates classic movies and their Scottish locations, there is a programme on Touring Scotland, another on the cult of the Munros, and Michael Portillo chairing a discussion on the possibility of Scottish independence.The season also features documentaries on the legacy of Calvinism in Scotland, on Tweed, the fabric and industry, and on Balmoral, the Royal Family's most private residence and its links to Scottish traditions.
'Can anyone imagine the BBC running anything like that for England?' asks Scilla Cullen chairman in her Autumn message to Campaign membership. 'Just imagine the BBC doing a programme, for example, on Sandringham and the Royal Family's links to the English countryside. It would not as much as enter its head to run a programme on the history of English regiments in the British Army. For the BBC, as an unspoken but governing ideology, there isn't an England. There are Brits and there are the Scots and the Welsh, but there are no English as a distinct people in the same way. Every time he is on the Wimnbledon screen, Andy Murray is a Scot. Tim Henman was always and only a Brit. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, Cardiff the capital of Wales. But never once in all my lifetime have I heard the BBC ever talk of London as the capital of England, which it is.
'For the BBC there is the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's it. It officially organises itself into what it calls 'the Nations and the Regions', the nations being Scotland, Wales and NI and the regions being its divisions of England into such regions as the North West, the West Midlands etc which have no roots at all in England's history and culture.
'There is BBC Scotland, there is BBC Wales, there is BBC Northern Ireland. But in letter after letter from the BBC Head Office to the CEP, the firm statement is that they will not have a BBC England.
'Instead England is balkanised into a myriad of local stations: BBC Devon, BBC Manchester, BBC Lincolnshire and so on. 'England is too big to have its own BBC station like Scotland and Wales', the Head of the Dept. of 'Nations and Regions' writes to the CEP Media Unit. Yet there is a BBC World Service. Scotland, Wales and NI each has its own Trustee on the BBC Trust Board. England hasn't any. It has an Alison Hastings representing 'the regions'.
'This hostility to the idea of England as a distinct nation goes deep into the psyche of the British Establishment, of which the BBC is a major player culturally and politically,' writes Scilla Cullen. 'It regards the very idea of England as a threat to the narrow Establishment notion of Britishness, dominant but narrow. The BBC is consciously hostile. It is holding back the growth and enjoyment of Englishness, which is as much a direct consequence of the 1998 Devolution legislation as is the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Over the last eleven years the English people have become aware of themselves again as a distinct nation, very aware that they have been deprived of self rule which has been granted to Scotland and Wales, whose MPs can still make legislation for England's internal affairs and have obtained immense benefits for their countries which are denied to England.
'The BBC will have to dragged kicking and screaming into running a season of programmes on England as a distinct nation with its own distinct culture and history. If and when that happens, which in due course it will, it will mean that after 300 years of being denied it has its own identity, the British Establishment has finally accepted the fact that the United Kingdom can change and still exist.
contact:
Mrs Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman Tel: 01438 833155
Email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
'The default position for the BBC when it comes to anything to do with England is not to mention it, and certainly it is not to celebrate anything English if the BBC can possibly avoid it. Its default position with Scotland on the other hand is precisely the opposite. The BBC celebrates Scotland and everything Scottish at every opportunity.' That is the CEP's considered comment on the BBC's TV series of programmes 'This is Scotland' which starts this weekend.' in which the BBC will celebrate and examine aspects of Scottish culture, art, film-making, heritage, landscape and psyche.'. (BBC Press Release) .
'A Portrait Of Scotland discusses the artists and paintings that have reflected the changing face of Scotland since the Reformation, The Fighting Scots reviews the history of Scots in the British Army. Scotland On Screen celebrates classic movies and their Scottish locations, there is a programme on Touring Scotland, another on the cult of the Munros, and Michael Portillo chairing a discussion on the possibility of Scottish independence.The season also features documentaries on the legacy of Calvinism in Scotland, on Tweed, the fabric and industry, and on Balmoral, the Royal Family's most private residence and its links to Scottish traditions.
'Can anyone imagine the BBC running anything like that for England?' asks Scilla Cullen chairman in her Autumn message to Campaign membership. 'Just imagine the BBC doing a programme, for example, on Sandringham and the Royal Family's links to the English countryside. It would not as much as enter its head to run a programme on the history of English regiments in the British Army. For the BBC, as an unspoken but governing ideology, there isn't an England. There are Brits and there are the Scots and the Welsh, but there are no English as a distinct people in the same way. Every time he is on the Wimnbledon screen, Andy Murray is a Scot. Tim Henman was always and only a Brit. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, Cardiff the capital of Wales. But never once in all my lifetime have I heard the BBC ever talk of London as the capital of England, which it is.
'For the BBC there is the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's it. It officially organises itself into what it calls 'the Nations and the Regions', the nations being Scotland, Wales and NI and the regions being its divisions of England into such regions as the North West, the West Midlands etc which have no roots at all in England's history and culture.
'There is BBC Scotland, there is BBC Wales, there is BBC Northern Ireland. But in letter after letter from the BBC Head Office to the CEP, the firm statement is that they will not have a BBC England.
'Instead England is balkanised into a myriad of local stations: BBC Devon, BBC Manchester, BBC Lincolnshire and so on. 'England is too big to have its own BBC station like Scotland and Wales', the Head of the Dept. of 'Nations and Regions' writes to the CEP Media Unit. Yet there is a BBC World Service. Scotland, Wales and NI each has its own Trustee on the BBC Trust Board. England hasn't any. It has an Alison Hastings representing 'the regions'.
'This hostility to the idea of England as a distinct nation goes deep into the psyche of the British Establishment, of which the BBC is a major player culturally and politically,' writes Scilla Cullen. 'It regards the very idea of England as a threat to the narrow Establishment notion of Britishness, dominant but narrow. The BBC is consciously hostile. It is holding back the growth and enjoyment of Englishness, which is as much a direct consequence of the 1998 Devolution legislation as is the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Over the last eleven years the English people have become aware of themselves again as a distinct nation, very aware that they have been deprived of self rule which has been granted to Scotland and Wales, whose MPs can still make legislation for England's internal affairs and have obtained immense benefits for their countries which are denied to England.
'The BBC will have to dragged kicking and screaming into running a season of programmes on England as a distinct nation with its own distinct culture and history. If and when that happens, which in due course it will, it will mean that after 300 years of being denied it has its own identity, the British Establishment has finally accepted the fact that the United Kingdom can change and still exist.
contact:
Mrs Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman Tel: 01438 833155
Email: scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
Monday, August 24, 2009
The English Hating Jack Straw - What He Thinks Of England - Never Forget...
Anti-English bigot Jack Straw declares that the English are the violent and oppressive scourge of the UK .Back in 2000, Jack Straw, now "Justice Secretary" let rip with a history-rewriting anti-English rant at the BBC:
Speaking in the BBC Radio 4 documentary, Brits, Mr Straw will say that the English used their propensity to violence, "in Europe and with our empire".
"I think what you have within the UK is three small nations who've been over the centuries under the cosh of the English," he tells the programme.
"Those small nations have inevitably sought expression by a very explicit idea of nationhood."
Absolute Anglophobic cobblers.
For a start, Wales was a principality of England for centuries. Far too small in those days to be a 'nation' in its own right, although recognised as a country within the kingdom of England - Britain did not exist as a nation, England did. A lot of Welsh bigotry is based on myths and legends - the Celtic myth of 1707, for example. Scotland also has more a jugful of that nonsense in its makeup.
'Celtic Nations'? Exclusive, racist baloney! The Barnett Formula (loathed by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett), asymmetric national devolution, and the resulting West Lothian Question are all examples of the wilful discrimination carried out by the 'UK' Government against its largest and most ethnically diverse country, England.
Oh, and who got the asymmetric national devolution ball rolling? Yep, Tony Blair, a Scots PM.
Serving the five million people of his homeland so very well!
Historically, Scotland was far from innocent in skirmishes with the English (Braveheart is bigoted, jingoistic fiction) and was disproportionately active in the British Empire - and, indeed, had bankrupted itself before its union with England on a colonisation project of its own.
And blame the English for the whole Irish situation? Ah, so Scotland and Wales erect their pulpits and climb into them yet again, do they? And what about the fact that Ireland was partitioned by Lloyd George, a Welsh PM, with full backing of Scots protestants?
And the IRA were happily bombing England.
Don't forget.
Don't forget.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Arthur Aughey - "Celtic"
English Parliament Online is well worth a look. And of great interest is Arthur Aughey's piece on:
What fascinates me the most about Aughey's piece is his use of the "Celtic" word. Now, we all know that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are not Celts. I'm half-Scots, and my Scots side contains several differing (and typical of Scots) elements.
We know that the "Celtic" thing is quite a recent invention.
So why does Arthur Aughey insist in perpetuating the myth? After all, these nations hardly have much loyalty to each other, do they? Look at Ireland, partitioned by a Welsh UK Prime Minister (England suffered the IRA bombings, of course); look at the Barnett Formula - each "Celtic" nation looking after its own ends...
There seems to be something very unhealthy in perpetuating the Celtic myth.
Surely it's far better to look at what is happening to each nation of the UK, including England, without resorting to a racist ancient white tribe myth which apparently binds together three of the nations, but excludes the largest?
Diceyean Theory (or England's Case for Home Rule)
Dicey believed that Home Rule would deliver for England the disadvantages of Celtic separatism without the advantages of Union. The CEP claims that the English are now required to sacrifice their legitimate claims to nationhood in the interests of maintaining a Union which satisfies only the needs of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.What fascinates me the most about Aughey's piece is his use of the "Celtic" word. Now, we all know that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are not Celts. I'm half-Scots, and my Scots side contains several differing (and typical of Scots) elements.
We know that the "Celtic" thing is quite a recent invention.
So why does Arthur Aughey insist in perpetuating the myth? After all, these nations hardly have much loyalty to each other, do they? Look at Ireland, partitioned by a Welsh UK Prime Minister (England suffered the IRA bombings, of course); look at the Barnett Formula - each "Celtic" nation looking after its own ends...
There seems to be something very unhealthy in perpetuating the Celtic myth.
Surely it's far better to look at what is happening to each nation of the UK, including England, without resorting to a racist ancient white tribe myth which apparently binds together three of the nations, but excludes the largest?
WalesHome.org - The Romans In... England?
I'm starting to tire of this kind of crap from Wales:
Melding’s analysis starts by focusing on the history of the Welsh identity and its political manifestation. Beginning by examining the idea of Welshness under Roman and Norman political control in England, he concludes that the ascension of the Tudors to the English crown did far less for this country than the printing of the Bible in Welsh.
There wasn't an England when the Romans were in Britain.
Melding’s analysis starts by focusing on the history of the Welsh identity and its political manifestation. Beginning by examining the idea of Welshness under Roman and Norman political control in England, he concludes that the ascension of the Tudors to the English crown did far less for this country than the printing of the Bible in Welsh.
There wasn't an England when the Romans were in Britain.
There wasn't a Wales either.
It's really time that Wales was left to face a few realities.
Like survival alone or as an EU region.
Either way, Wales would be free of England, free of having England to blame for everything, right from the year dot, when England did not even exist (and Wales did not exist either!).
And those Welsh who fancied it could continue to indulge their racist ancient white tribe myth.
And we wouldn't have to put up with it.
It's really time that Wales was left to face a few realities.
Like survival alone or as an EU region.
Either way, Wales would be free of England, free of having England to blame for everything, right from the year dot, when England did not even exist (and Wales did not exist either!).
And those Welsh who fancied it could continue to indulge their racist ancient white tribe myth.
And we wouldn't have to put up with it.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Scots Are Not Celts...
Here's some bigoted twerp called Ben proving himself in a Telegraph comments thread:
How did English youth "learn" "hostile drinking" from "the Scots", Simon? Were there cells of subversive Celts hidden, mole-like, in every English pub, ready to spring into action as agents-provocateurs as eleven o'clock approached?
As usual, an interesting and sensitive article has been ruined by the inane bigotry of the Heffer-lump.
The pub is a glorious manifestation of Englishness; Hefferish bigotry is its disgusting and ludicrous dark side.
Celts? An ancient white tribe, surely? The Scots are all sorts, but not 'Celts'.
The UK "Celtic" ancient white tribe myth is the "disgusting and ludicrous side" to Scottish bigotry. And whilst we're at it, let's not forget Welsh and "Cornish" bigotry.
By all means defend the Scots, Ben, but the UK Celts are something else entirely - an exclusive romantic invention of recent centuries - based on a 1707 linguistic label from a Welsh Nationalist called Edward Lhuyd.
How did English youth "learn" "hostile drinking" from "the Scots", Simon? Were there cells of subversive Celts hidden, mole-like, in every English pub, ready to spring into action as agents-provocateurs as eleven o'clock approached?
As usual, an interesting and sensitive article has been ruined by the inane bigotry of the Heffer-lump.
The pub is a glorious manifestation of Englishness; Hefferish bigotry is its disgusting and ludicrous dark side.
Celts? An ancient white tribe, surely? The Scots are all sorts, but not 'Celts'.
The UK "Celtic" ancient white tribe myth is the "disgusting and ludicrous side" to Scottish bigotry. And whilst we're at it, let's not forget Welsh and "Cornish" bigotry.
By all means defend the Scots, Ben, but the UK Celts are something else entirely - an exclusive romantic invention of recent centuries - based on a 1707 linguistic label from a Welsh Nationalist called Edward Lhuyd.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Lord Richard Of Ammanford And The Barnett Formula Lords Report - Is The Campaign For An English Parliament On Holiday?
From Wales Online:
Lord Richard, who led a review into the Assembly’s powers in 2003-04, is not a man to mince his words. Barnett has given Scotland and England more than they need and Wales and Northern Ireland too little.
Lord Richard of Ammanford may not be a man to "mince his words" - but he is a man to tell lies. Any clear headed, unbiased assessment of the Barnett Formula reveals that it is most unfair to England, indeed, its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, states that is so (here).
England gets the least and it shows.
That's why they have free NHS prescriptions for everybody, including the very rich, in Wales.
But where is the Campaign For An English Parliament's response to Lord Ammanford's statement? Have we missed something?
Lord Richard, who led a review into the Assembly’s powers in 2003-04, is not a man to mince his words. Barnett has given Scotland and England more than they need and Wales and Northern Ireland too little.
Lord Richard of Ammanford may not be a man to "mince his words" - but he is a man to tell lies. Any clear headed, unbiased assessment of the Barnett Formula reveals that it is most unfair to England, indeed, its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, states that is so (here).
England gets the least and it shows.
That's why they have free NHS prescriptions for everybody, including the very rich, in Wales.
But where is the Campaign For An English Parliament's response to Lord Ammanford's statement? Have we missed something?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Deliciously Yorkshire (and Humber) - Out To Destroy Historic Yorkshire - And England, Of Course
As the historic county of Yorkshire heads towards abolition and absorption into a tinpot region of the EU, we take a moment to ponder: whatever would Amos and Mr Wilks have thought?We all know that the North East voted 78% against regionalisation in a referendum, and that they were the only area of England allowed a say.
Which the UK Government then ignored and went ahead, breaking up England into nine regions, in consultation with the EU, on the old "divide and rule" principle.
And from that has come groups like "Deliciously Yorkshire" - the "regional food group" for "Yorkshire and Humber".
That fine old EU region.
"Use the local sourcing directory to find producers from across the Yorkshire region. The directory will help you to find fresh, local food and places to dine out," burbles "Deliciously Yorkshire".
But non of the daft twits leaping on to this particular band wagon seem to have noticed the "Humber" or "region" bit. Many would profess to be "proud" Yorkshire men and women, but few seem to know much about what Yorkshire actually is - an ancient English county, part of the ancient country of England - and what it is not - a bland region of the UK and EU.
What a bunch of wallies!
But the production team of the soap Emmerdale think that Yorkshire is a region:
Martin Radmall, from the production buying team of Emmerdale, which is filmed at Harewood, said: "The Emmerdale farm shop will have similar messages to the regional food group, such as supporting local producers and products and buying seasonal, local food. We're very pleased to include such high-quality products from the region; the Emmerdale families will be spoilt for choice."
So there you are, Yorkshire is a region. Emmerdale says so.
Remember, don't buy English (the Scots and Welsh support buyers nationally in Scotland and Wales, but we don't as England doesn't formally exist). Don't support Yorkshire either - it's being dissolved into one of nine EU regions in what was formerly England. No, support "Deliciously Yorkshire (and Humber)" - another one of those groups dedicated to the abolition of the ancient country of England, and, in this case, the ancient county of Yorkshire.
Because Yorkshire and Humber is not Yorkshire.
Links:
Deliciously Yorkshire - http://www.deliciouslyorkshire.co.uk/dy/
The Regional Food Group - http://www.rfgyh.co.uk/
Friday, July 17, 2009
Lord Richard Of Ammanford: Let The People Of England Die For Want Of NHS Equality And Give Wales, My Country, More Money
The House Of Lords Barnett Formula Committee has made its report. Headed by a, we feel, bigoted, anti-English/England Welshman, the Committee comes up with some astounding cobblers:
"When the Committee considered a range of indicators of need it became clear that Wales and Northern Ireland have greater needs per head of population than Scotland and England – the current allocations made through the Formula give Scotland more funds, per head of population, than appears to be justified when compared to Wales and Northern Ireland and their needs."
And what does England get?
Health apartheid (more here) and premature deaths? We don't need medication, do we, Lord Richard?
Lower spending across the board? We don't deserve any better, do we, Lord Richard?
And what does Wales get?
Free prescriptions and lots more?
To make the English jealous, as Rhodri Morgan childishly squawked (more here).
Why on earth was, what appears to be, an English-hating Welsh racist appointed head of the Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula?
And as for saying Northern Ireland, which does best of all out of the odious formula, needs more money - good grief!
"When the Committee considered a range of indicators of need it became clear that Wales and Northern Ireland have greater needs per head of population than Scotland and England – the current allocations made through the Formula give Scotland more funds, per head of population, than appears to be justified when compared to Wales and Northern Ireland and their needs."
And what does England get?
Health apartheid (more here) and premature deaths? We don't need medication, do we, Lord Richard?
Lower spending across the board? We don't deserve any better, do we, Lord Richard?
And what does Wales get?
Free prescriptions and lots more?
To make the English jealous, as Rhodri Morgan childishly squawked (more here).
Why on earth was, what appears to be, an English-hating Welsh racist appointed head of the Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula?
And as for saying Northern Ireland, which does best of all out of the odious formula, needs more money - good grief!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Inland Revenue: Bank Of England Out, Royal Bank Of Scotland In...
Incredibly, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the rest of the Scottish Raj at Westminster are at it again:
During 2009 the Bank of England will no longer handle the Inland Revenue transactions. The bank accounts will in future be operated by the Royal Bank of Scotland and by Citibank. If you make electronic payments to the Inland Revenue, you will need to update your records to ensure that the payment goes to the correct bank account. Full details will be being issued in the near future.
Great business for the Royal Bank of Scotland, of course.
We know that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling pledged to put Scotland first in all they did way back in 1989, but this is getting ridiculous.
Big hat-tip to the Cross of St George blog. Read it all here.
Just how much more are the sheep of England prepared to take?
During 2009 the Bank of England will no longer handle the Inland Revenue transactions. The bank accounts will in future be operated by the Royal Bank of Scotland and by Citibank. If you make electronic payments to the Inland Revenue, you will need to update your records to ensure that the payment goes to the correct bank account. Full details will be being issued in the near future.
Great business for the Royal Bank of Scotland, of course.
We know that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling pledged to put Scotland first in all they did way back in 1989, but this is getting ridiculous.
Big hat-tip to the Cross of St George blog. Read it all here.
Just how much more are the sheep of England prepared to take?
Andy Mycock - Yet More Drivel About The "Union"...
Dr Andrew Mycock is co-founder of something called the "Academy For Study Of Britishness", based in Huddersfield.
Dr Mycock states in an article entitled "The Challenges of A Disunited Kingdom" over at the naffly-named "Our Kingdom":
For most public, high-profile relationships, when rumours of a rocky patch surface there is plenty of 'advice' around. So it is with that most celebrated political marriage: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Intense debate has raged about its imminent break-up or whether Britishness can be 're-forged'. The recent publication of the Calman Report has energised such debates in Scotland though with significantly less impact in England which would appear to be more concerned about on-going quandary of whether Andy Murray is British or Scottish.
We ask: How much was the Calman Commission reported in England? And how much are devolution issues reported in England? We ask not for the first time, but these do not appear to be the sort of questions that occur to Andy Mycock.
Interestingly, he makes this comment:
If the English are finally sent packing [from Scotland and Wales].
What on earth does Dr Brit Mycock mean by that? Is he sharing in the demonising of the English? You know, like Jack Straw, the old, old tune about how the English were thoroughly nasty in UK history and "subjugated" those around them?
Mr Mycock also tells us:
Many young Asians see Englishness as exclusory, ethnicised and linked with cultural practice such as binge-drinking and sexual promiscuity. Conversely, young white youths see Britishness ‘tainted’ by multilculturalism, meaning Englishness is a more instinctive identity. For some, British identity is a looser, more flexible identity that can mean anything or even nothing. The push for independence at a time of such significant societal transition and community tensions in England could have significant implications, particularly for young Asians who may feel isolated and excluded.
Um, in recent years we have seen changes in this area as Englishness has emerged from the vaults. But of course the Government must lead. And the UK Government demonises or ignores England and Englishness all the time. New arrivals in England have Britishness rammed down their throats.
Desperate Dr Mycock also says:
If separatist nationalists seek to consistently adhere to the principle of self-determination then surely those BOTs who wish to remain part of the UK have an input in debates about its future? The conspicuous absence of policies on such issues would suggest that separatist nationalists assume that England would undertake all post-imperial responsibilities and their associated costs, though Perryman and other English progressive nationalists fail to acknowledge such complications.
We have heard such things mentioned. But there has been no suggestion that England should shoulder the burden of decision and expense alone.
Dr Mycock obviously doesn't suffer as a working class person would from the worst effects of the West Lothian Question, health apartheid, etc.
He makes us fume!
We do realise that the article covers a lot more ground, but we wanted to pluck out a few England-relevant points.
And it's quite clear to see where Dr Andrew Mycock is coming from.
He ends:
Current government approaches in reforming the UK state are piecemeal and often ill-defined, thus stimulating more uncertainty. But those who seek its hasty demise must provide a more coherent and comprehensive view of the post-Union settlement, or they might simply replicate or even intensify divisions within British society.
This makes us so angry!
Let the people be heard!
Just as they were in Scotland and Wales.
And the fact that he ends on the phrase "British society" whilst actually discussing something that would have brought about its end? Read again:
Current government approaches in reforming the UK state are piecemeal and often ill-defined, thus stimulating more uncertainty. But those who seek its hasty demise must provide a more coherent and comprehensive view of the post-Union settlement, or they might simply replicate or even intensify divisions within British society. (our emphasis throughout)
So, if Britain was no more there would still be British society, would there?
My God! We're glad we're not clever!
Dr Mycock states in an article entitled "The Challenges of A Disunited Kingdom" over at the naffly-named "Our Kingdom":
For most public, high-profile relationships, when rumours of a rocky patch surface there is plenty of 'advice' around. So it is with that most celebrated political marriage: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Intense debate has raged about its imminent break-up or whether Britishness can be 're-forged'. The recent publication of the Calman Report has energised such debates in Scotland though with significantly less impact in England which would appear to be more concerned about on-going quandary of whether Andy Murray is British or Scottish.
We ask: How much was the Calman Commission reported in England? And how much are devolution issues reported in England? We ask not for the first time, but these do not appear to be the sort of questions that occur to Andy Mycock.
Interestingly, he makes this comment:
If the English are finally sent packing [from Scotland and Wales].
What on earth does Dr Brit Mycock mean by that? Is he sharing in the demonising of the English? You know, like Jack Straw, the old, old tune about how the English were thoroughly nasty in UK history and "subjugated" those around them?
Mr Mycock also tells us:
Many young Asians see Englishness as exclusory, ethnicised and linked with cultural practice such as binge-drinking and sexual promiscuity. Conversely, young white youths see Britishness ‘tainted’ by multilculturalism, meaning Englishness is a more instinctive identity. For some, British identity is a looser, more flexible identity that can mean anything or even nothing. The push for independence at a time of such significant societal transition and community tensions in England could have significant implications, particularly for young Asians who may feel isolated and excluded.
Um, in recent years we have seen changes in this area as Englishness has emerged from the vaults. But of course the Government must lead. And the UK Government demonises or ignores England and Englishness all the time. New arrivals in England have Britishness rammed down their throats.
Desperate Dr Mycock also says:
If separatist nationalists seek to consistently adhere to the principle of self-determination then surely those BOTs who wish to remain part of the UK have an input in debates about its future? The conspicuous absence of policies on such issues would suggest that separatist nationalists assume that England would undertake all post-imperial responsibilities and their associated costs, though Perryman and other English progressive nationalists fail to acknowledge such complications.
We have heard such things mentioned. But there has been no suggestion that England should shoulder the burden of decision and expense alone.
Dr Mycock obviously doesn't suffer as a working class person would from the worst effects of the West Lothian Question, health apartheid, etc.
He makes us fume!
We do realise that the article covers a lot more ground, but we wanted to pluck out a few England-relevant points.
And it's quite clear to see where Dr Andrew Mycock is coming from.
He ends:
Current government approaches in reforming the UK state are piecemeal and often ill-defined, thus stimulating more uncertainty. But those who seek its hasty demise must provide a more coherent and comprehensive view of the post-Union settlement, or they might simply replicate or even intensify divisions within British society.
This makes us so angry!
Let the people be heard!
Just as they were in Scotland and Wales.
And the fact that he ends on the phrase "British society" whilst actually discussing something that would have brought about its end? Read again:
Current government approaches in reforming the UK state are piecemeal and often ill-defined, thus stimulating more uncertainty. But those who seek its hasty demise must provide a more coherent and comprehensive view of the post-Union settlement, or they might simply replicate or even intensify divisions within British society. (our emphasis throughout)
So, if Britain was no more there would still be British society, would there?
My God! We're glad we're not clever!
Monday, July 13, 2009
CEP Press Release: Racist? Illegal? Not when it concerns Scotland
RACIST? ILLEGAL? NOT WHEN IT CONCERNS SCOTLAND.
A VOICE FOR SCOTLAND? OF COURSE -A SECRETARY OF STATE AND A WHOLE PARLIAMENT.
A VOICE FOR ENGLAND? NONE AT ALL.
JOBS FOR SCOTLAND? PERFECTLY LEGAL.
JOBS FOR ENGLAND? ILLEGAL AND RACIST.
‘The past week has highlighted how differently Scotland and England are treated’, said Michael Knowles member of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament. ‘A leaked memo from shipbuilders BVT revealed the possibility of large-scale redundancies on the Clyde, affecting both its Glasgow shipyards, Scotstoun and Govan (but, interestingly, not Rosyth in Fifeshire which borders on the constituency of Gordon Brown). Immediately both the UK Scottish Department and the Scottish Parliament swung into action. ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Clyde,’ announced Jim Murphy Scotland’s Secretary of State. ‘The order book is full. Jobs are guaranteed for at least the next 7 years. We have a commitment to the Clyde, we’re here for the long-term.’ And SNP MSP for Govan, Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister in the Scottish parliament waded in behind. ‘We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any Scottish shipyard.’
‘Contrast all that with how England is dealt with. The shipyards of Devonport, Portsmouth, Appledore, the Medway, Camel Lairds in Birkenhead, the Tyne and Barrow in Furness, they have all either been reduced or closed, even on occasion work taken from them and transferred to the Clyde, and not one single UK minister even speaks out. There is no voice for England, there is no minister for England, there is no parliament for England. England simply has no recognition. None whatsoever. It’s lost somewhere in the bowels of the UK state.
‘When English workers demonstrated recently for British jobs for British workers at the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire, they were told that their demand was illegal. Even racist. But Scottish law demands that in Scotland preference is given to any workers living within 40 miles of a site. The Scottish Parliament exists for no other purpose except to get what is best for Scotland. The legislation for the Welsh Assembly even states that the whole point of the Assembly is to ‘focus on the concerns of the Welsh nation’
‘The CEP welcomes anything that can give the people of Scotland and Wales the best of everything. All it asks is that the same is done for the people of England. A voice for England. A First Minister for England. A Parliament for England. In other words, Equality within the Union for England. How refreshing it would be to hear a First Minister for England announcing in the face of the threat of job cuts: ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Tyne or Appledore or Devonport or Barrow…We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any English shipyard.’. The deep truth is that no UK minister is happy to employ the word ‘English’. That is the one taboo in UK politics that has still to be broken.
A VOICE FOR SCOTLAND? OF COURSE -A SECRETARY OF STATE AND A WHOLE PARLIAMENT.
A VOICE FOR ENGLAND? NONE AT ALL.
JOBS FOR SCOTLAND? PERFECTLY LEGAL.
JOBS FOR ENGLAND? ILLEGAL AND RACIST.
‘The past week has highlighted how differently Scotland and England are treated’, said Michael Knowles member of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament. ‘A leaked memo from shipbuilders BVT revealed the possibility of large-scale redundancies on the Clyde, affecting both its Glasgow shipyards, Scotstoun and Govan (but, interestingly, not Rosyth in Fifeshire which borders on the constituency of Gordon Brown). Immediately both the UK Scottish Department and the Scottish Parliament swung into action. ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Clyde,’ announced Jim Murphy Scotland’s Secretary of State. ‘The order book is full. Jobs are guaranteed for at least the next 7 years. We have a commitment to the Clyde, we’re here for the long-term.’ And SNP MSP for Govan, Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister in the Scottish parliament waded in behind. ‘We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any Scottish shipyard.’
‘Contrast all that with how England is dealt with. The shipyards of Devonport, Portsmouth, Appledore, the Medway, Camel Lairds in Birkenhead, the Tyne and Barrow in Furness, they have all either been reduced or closed, even on occasion work taken from them and transferred to the Clyde, and not one single UK minister even speaks out. There is no voice for England, there is no minister for England, there is no parliament for England. England simply has no recognition. None whatsoever. It’s lost somewhere in the bowels of the UK state.
‘When English workers demonstrated recently for British jobs for British workers at the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire, they were told that their demand was illegal. Even racist. But Scottish law demands that in Scotland preference is given to any workers living within 40 miles of a site. The Scottish Parliament exists for no other purpose except to get what is best for Scotland. The legislation for the Welsh Assembly even states that the whole point of the Assembly is to ‘focus on the concerns of the Welsh nation’
‘The CEP welcomes anything that can give the people of Scotland and Wales the best of everything. All it asks is that the same is done for the people of England. A voice for England. A First Minister for England. A Parliament for England. In other words, Equality within the Union for England. How refreshing it would be to hear a First Minister for England announcing in the face of the threat of job cuts: ‘The UK government is determined to stand by the Tyne or Appledore or Devonport or Barrow…We must have a guarantee from Gordon Brown that the Ministry of Defence will not force the closure of any English shipyard.’. The deep truth is that no UK minister is happy to employ the word ‘English’. That is the one taboo in UK politics that has still to be broken.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Isn't "Land Of My Fathers" A Fine Example Of Welsh Racism? Plus BBC Bias And Edith Bowman And T In The Park - ENOUGH!
From the Daily Mail on-line:
Opera singer Katherine Jenkins opened the Ashes today with a rendition of Land of My Fathers.
Cricket chiefs chose the Welsh hymn as they feared that the mainly local Cardiff crowd would not get behind the home team.
The soprano performed to the sold out Sophia Gardens in a striking red dress. Her performance was followed by both the English and Australian National Anthems as well as the hymn Jerusalem.
Um, God Save The Queen is the BRITISH, not the English National anthem - just as relevant to Wales as to England - and isn't Land Of My Fathers a rather bigoted, exclusive hymn to be sung as a national hymn for Wales? After all, we know that the vast majority of migrants settle in England, but what about those who settle in Wales, for whom Wales is NOT the land of their fathers?
Today, I had the grave misfortune to listen to BBC Radio 1, which was asking Welsh cricket spectators what they thought. One of them put forth the opinion that "Wales is better than England".
Would the BBC have broadcast an English person saying that England is better than Wales?
But I feel all this is positive. The break-up of the dis-united Kingdom is coming, this has brought more attention to the facts, and just where a lot of the jingoistic, exclusive nationalistic stuff is actually coming from. Wales, in this case, preening exclusively, with both hands buried deep in England's pockets.
Hopefully the day is not too far away when Wales will truly discover what it is like to be a proud, historic nation - when it finally stands on its own two feet.
And the same for Scotland. I suffered Edith Bowman extolling the virtues of "Scotland's biggest music festival, T In The Park" about five times in a her BBC show, which runs for about three hours. With Ms Bowman it's usually "The UK's biggest this" or "The UK's biggest that".
And to think that the vast majority of people being forced to pay for her organisation live in England. Scotland is another jingoistic little nation, with its hands buried deep in England's pockets.
But on Radio 1, it's like England doesn't exist, or the station broadcasts gross anti-English bias and brainwashing such as that heard on The Surgery - when its Welsh presenter Aled came up with the bright idea that the English were not loyal to England, but to the (imposed EU/NuLabour) regions. The whole Surgery theme was that old familiar song "Aren't the English racists one-and-all?". That show was produced by Anna Bowman. Another BBC Radio 1 Bowman! Read all about The Surgery incident here.
But despite of, or probably because of all this, England is coming back.
Good luck to Scotland and Wales in the future.
And welcome back, England!
Opera singer Katherine Jenkins opened the Ashes today with a rendition of Land of My Fathers.
Cricket chiefs chose the Welsh hymn as they feared that the mainly local Cardiff crowd would not get behind the home team.
The soprano performed to the sold out Sophia Gardens in a striking red dress. Her performance was followed by both the English and Australian National Anthems as well as the hymn Jerusalem.
Um, God Save The Queen is the BRITISH, not the English National anthem - just as relevant to Wales as to England - and isn't Land Of My Fathers a rather bigoted, exclusive hymn to be sung as a national hymn for Wales? After all, we know that the vast majority of migrants settle in England, but what about those who settle in Wales, for whom Wales is NOT the land of their fathers?
Today, I had the grave misfortune to listen to BBC Radio 1, which was asking Welsh cricket spectators what they thought. One of them put forth the opinion that "Wales is better than England".
Would the BBC have broadcast an English person saying that England is better than Wales?
But I feel all this is positive. The break-up of the dis-united Kingdom is coming, this has brought more attention to the facts, and just where a lot of the jingoistic, exclusive nationalistic stuff is actually coming from. Wales, in this case, preening exclusively, with both hands buried deep in England's pockets.
Hopefully the day is not too far away when Wales will truly discover what it is like to be a proud, historic nation - when it finally stands on its own two feet.
And the same for Scotland. I suffered Edith Bowman extolling the virtues of "Scotland's biggest music festival, T In The Park" about five times in a her BBC show, which runs for about three hours. With Ms Bowman it's usually "The UK's biggest this" or "The UK's biggest that".
And to think that the vast majority of people being forced to pay for her organisation live in England. Scotland is another jingoistic little nation, with its hands buried deep in England's pockets.
But on Radio 1, it's like England doesn't exist, or the station broadcasts gross anti-English bias and brainwashing such as that heard on The Surgery - when its Welsh presenter Aled came up with the bright idea that the English were not loyal to England, but to the (imposed EU/NuLabour) regions. The whole Surgery theme was that old familiar song "Aren't the English racists one-and-all?". That show was produced by Anna Bowman. Another BBC Radio 1 Bowman! Read all about The Surgery incident here.
But despite of, or probably because of all this, England is coming back.
Good luck to Scotland and Wales in the future.
And welcome back, England!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
CEP: Gordon Brown puts Scotland first, not Britain
"On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament last Wednesday July 1st Gordon Brown published an article in the Scottish Daily Record," stated Philippa Cullen of Lower Froyle in Hampshire in her end-of-month message to CEP members in the county.
"It reeked with Scottish nationalism. Coming from a British Prime Minister who should put Britain first and speak equally of each nation of Britain it was outrageous. Yet it was totally consistent with his written pledge of March 31st 1989 when as 'one of the leaders of Labour's campaign for devolution' he signed the Scottish Claim of Right vowing 'to make the interests of the Scottish people paramount in everything he said and did'. His government, he says, 'has never stopped focusing on delivering for the Scottish people'.
"In the article he celebrates 'Scotland’s rich and vibrant political history'. He talks of 'the bravery and brilliance of Scots in uniform', no mention of the English who make up the vast bulk of the British Army, Navy and Air Force. He describes how he 'had campaigned for a fairer future for Scotland' and how he had made policy that 'pays off for the Scots. Our decision to build two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers at shipyards including Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth has secured thousands of jobs in Scotland and protected Scots' hard-earned savings'. He omits to mention that the preservation of shipbuilding jobs in Scotland had been at the deliberate expense of England's shipyards, particularly Devonport and Tyneside.
"He exhibits breathtaking effrontery by saying that 'the Scottish people rightly felt frustrated in recent decades as unpopular decisions were made on health, education and policing', while knowing full well that his fellow Scottish Labour MPs in the UK Parliament have taken away English MPs' choice on foundation hospitals and university tuition fees by voting against them and imposing these against English wishes.
"Unashamedly he boasts that the Scots can enjoy 'influencing decisions in Westminster' while making no mention of the West Lothian Question. He trumpets on about 'Scottish solutions to Scottish issues on things such as free personal care for the elderly, tuition fees, free travel for the elderly and prescription charges', as if England doesn't have exactly the same issues; and as if he is unaware, which he most definitely is not, that in terms of tax revenue it is the English taxpayer who pays for the extra benefits the Scots now enjoy. In terms of tax revenue Scotland is unable to pay its own way. 'The Union Government invests billions of pounds in Scotland beyond the Scottish Parliament’s £35 billion annual budget' he writes. What he does not write is that 90% of the Union Government's revenue comes the English taxpayer.
Because of devolution, Brown writes, 'Scots could finally start taking more control of our daily lives'. Note his use of the word 'our'. He smugly says "For the first time in 300 years, Scotland once again had its own parliament’. There is no fiercer opponent of England having its own parliament and the English having 'control of their daily lives'. than him; and he is using all the instruments of the British state to try to make sure it never happens. He boasts of 'hosting a working dinner in my home in Fife for leaders from all the Holyrood parties'. Would he ever as much as think of getting representatives of the people of England together 'to focus on delivering for the English people'?
As Brown so rightly says in the article, more truthfully than he realizes: 'In short, devolution gives Scotland the best of both worlds'
"It reeked with Scottish nationalism. Coming from a British Prime Minister who should put Britain first and speak equally of each nation of Britain it was outrageous. Yet it was totally consistent with his written pledge of March 31st 1989 when as 'one of the leaders of Labour's campaign for devolution' he signed the Scottish Claim of Right vowing 'to make the interests of the Scottish people paramount in everything he said and did'. His government, he says, 'has never stopped focusing on delivering for the Scottish people'.
"In the article he celebrates 'Scotland’s rich and vibrant political history'. He talks of 'the bravery and brilliance of Scots in uniform', no mention of the English who make up the vast bulk of the British Army, Navy and Air Force. He describes how he 'had campaigned for a fairer future for Scotland' and how he had made policy that 'pays off for the Scots. Our decision to build two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers at shipyards including Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth has secured thousands of jobs in Scotland and protected Scots' hard-earned savings'. He omits to mention that the preservation of shipbuilding jobs in Scotland had been at the deliberate expense of England's shipyards, particularly Devonport and Tyneside.
"He exhibits breathtaking effrontery by saying that 'the Scottish people rightly felt frustrated in recent decades as unpopular decisions were made on health, education and policing', while knowing full well that his fellow Scottish Labour MPs in the UK Parliament have taken away English MPs' choice on foundation hospitals and university tuition fees by voting against them and imposing these against English wishes.
"Unashamedly he boasts that the Scots can enjoy 'influencing decisions in Westminster' while making no mention of the West Lothian Question. He trumpets on about 'Scottish solutions to Scottish issues on things such as free personal care for the elderly, tuition fees, free travel for the elderly and prescription charges', as if England doesn't have exactly the same issues; and as if he is unaware, which he most definitely is not, that in terms of tax revenue it is the English taxpayer who pays for the extra benefits the Scots now enjoy. In terms of tax revenue Scotland is unable to pay its own way. 'The Union Government invests billions of pounds in Scotland beyond the Scottish Parliament’s £35 billion annual budget' he writes. What he does not write is that 90% of the Union Government's revenue comes the English taxpayer.
Because of devolution, Brown writes, 'Scots could finally start taking more control of our daily lives'. Note his use of the word 'our'. He smugly says "For the first time in 300 years, Scotland once again had its own parliament’. There is no fiercer opponent of England having its own parliament and the English having 'control of their daily lives'. than him; and he is using all the instruments of the British state to try to make sure it never happens. He boasts of 'hosting a working dinner in my home in Fife for leaders from all the Holyrood parties'. Would he ever as much as think of getting representatives of the people of England together 'to focus on delivering for the English people'?
As Brown so rightly says in the article, more truthfully than he realizes: 'In short, devolution gives Scotland the best of both worlds'
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Co-Operative Supermarkets - Good With Food, Flying The Scottish Flag And Hating England...
Ooh, the Co-op! Another anti-English bunch of supermarket bigots!
Waking Hereward reports on their latest TV ad - in which the Saltire and the word "Scottish" is used to describe some burgers, but no word at all and the Union Flag is used for English sausages.
For the "great British barbecue", of course!
Humph!
Read all about it and see the ad by popping over to Waking Hereward.
Waking Hereward reports on their latest TV ad - in which the Saltire and the word "Scottish" is used to describe some burgers, but no word at all and the Union Flag is used for English sausages.
For the "great British barbecue", of course!
Humph!
Read all about it and see the ad by popping over to Waking Hereward.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
CEP: GORDON BROWN’S ‘PROGRAMME FOR ‘BRITAIN’ DEFIES AND DENIES THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ENGLISH NOTION OF DEMOCRACY.
English democracy is representative democracy. The people who make the laws that govern a country must represent the people they govern and be answerable to them. On that basic principle England’s Parliament was founded almost 800 years ago in 1253. That same principle lies at the heart of English Common Law and the jury system. When Scotland united with England with the Act of Union in 1707, it accepted the English way of democratic government.
‘But the ‘Programme for ‘Britain’ announced yesterday by Gordon Brown in England’s ancient House of Commons is nothing less than outright repudiation of England’s way of democracy’. That is the declaration of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The main proposals of the Programme cover housing, health and education. Not one of them will apply to Scotland because Scotland through its parliament is self-ruling in all matters of housing, health and education. In these three important areas of government Brown is proposing legislation for England only.
Yet Brown is MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire. He does not represent one inch of England’s territory and not one single English voter. And he is not answerable in any election to any English man or woman. He is the principal legislator for England, yet he does not represent England in any of these very important matters and he is not accountable to any English person.
What is more, when at next year’s General Election he stands for re-election in Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, because he is not a member of the Scottish Parliament, he is not answerable even to his own electorate for any matter concerning housing, health and education. Our system of government has become twisted and deformed.
In terms of what is most basic to the very meaning of English democracy, to have an MP representing a Scottish constituency making legislation for England in matters on which he was not elected by and is not accountable to any electorate is not just wrong, it is politically and constitutionally perverse.
In the statement of the ‘Constitution Unit’ to the House of Commons Justice Committee in November 2007, what is ‘closest to a complete answer’ to this situation created by the nature of the 1998 devolution legislation ‘is an English Parliament?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
‘But the ‘Programme for ‘Britain’ announced yesterday by Gordon Brown in England’s ancient House of Commons is nothing less than outright repudiation of England’s way of democracy’. That is the declaration of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The main proposals of the Programme cover housing, health and education. Not one of them will apply to Scotland because Scotland through its parliament is self-ruling in all matters of housing, health and education. In these three important areas of government Brown is proposing legislation for England only.
Yet Brown is MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath in Fifeshire. He does not represent one inch of England’s territory and not one single English voter. And he is not answerable in any election to any English man or woman. He is the principal legislator for England, yet he does not represent England in any of these very important matters and he is not accountable to any English person.
What is more, when at next year’s General Election he stands for re-election in Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, because he is not a member of the Scottish Parliament, he is not answerable even to his own electorate for any matter concerning housing, health and education. Our system of government has become twisted and deformed.
In terms of what is most basic to the very meaning of English democracy, to have an MP representing a Scottish constituency making legislation for England in matters on which he was not elected by and is not accountable to any electorate is not just wrong, it is politically and constitutionally perverse.
In the statement of the ‘Constitution Unit’ to the House of Commons Justice Committee in November 2007, what is ‘closest to a complete answer’ to this situation created by the nature of the 1998 devolution legislation ‘is an English Parliament?’
Contact:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit
Tel: 01260 271139
Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Daniel Hannan: "Break Up England - Problem Solved!"
Daniel Hannan, star of YouTube, and undemocratic, cheesy-arsed, gravy train-riding MEP for South East England, advances his own plan to save the UK, and break-up England. As usual, it's not devolution for England, decided by the electorate in England, it's devolution in England, the break-up of the nation, orchestrated by the UK Government and the EU that is the desired course of action.
As for the issue of devolution, this Hannan has a definite end-game. There is no power bestowed on the Holyrood Parliament under the 1998 Scotland Act that could not, in England, be exercised by counties and cities. The decentralisation of power in England is, of course, a meritorious goal in itself. But a happy consequence of English localism would be the rectification of the lopsided 1998 settlement: all Westminster MPs would find themselves on the same footing, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and immigration. Domestic questions - health, education, policing, social security- would be decided more closely to the people. All clear?
So, each county or "region" of England is awarded the same powers as the Scottish parliament? Completely unworkable. And undemocratic.
The people of England need a referendum on how they are governed - the same thing the Scots and Welsh were given.
Despite being last year's YouTube hit, Hannan is a wally.
In fact, the anti-English arrogance of the likes of guzzling Hannan make me sick.
Fuck off, man - let the people decide!
As for the issue of devolution, this Hannan has a definite end-game. There is no power bestowed on the Holyrood Parliament under the 1998 Scotland Act that could not, in England, be exercised by counties and cities. The decentralisation of power in England is, of course, a meritorious goal in itself. But a happy consequence of English localism would be the rectification of the lopsided 1998 settlement: all Westminster MPs would find themselves on the same footing, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and immigration. Domestic questions - health, education, policing, social security- would be decided more closely to the people. All clear?
So, each county or "region" of England is awarded the same powers as the Scottish parliament? Completely unworkable. And undemocratic.
The people of England need a referendum on how they are governed - the same thing the Scots and Welsh were given.
Despite being last year's YouTube hit, Hannan is a wally.
In fact, the anti-English arrogance of the likes of guzzling Hannan make me sick.
Fuck off, man - let the people decide!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Scotland - UK Supermarkets Agree To Bolster Anti-English Scots' Bigots
And he released figures showing a 21 per cent increase in demand for Scottish food products over the past two years, despite the economic downturn.
Mr Lochhead unveiled the new retailers' charter – signed by Aldi, Asda, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Morrison's, Sainsbury's, Tesco and Waitrose – as he published the Scottish Government's next steps in the first-ever national food and drink strategy.
Well, that's all fine and dandy. Great for English-hating Scots' bigots who can't bear to buy English, as well as people who simply see Scotland as a country alone, with no loyalty due elsewhere. Which it is not.
And I noticed recently that Sainsbury's and Tesco have changed the packaging on their sausages in England so that you can now buy such delights as "BRITISH Pork Licolnshire sausages".
And I've also heard that Tesco is intent on cleansing Englishness out of existence by renaming the (very) few English lines they have as "British" (more here).
There are indications that the major supermarkets have refused to brand English products as English to appease anti-English Scots' bigots. Read the CEP's findings here.
When it comes to our anti-English, Scots-biased supermarkets, we personally vote with our wallets and purses.
How about you?
A big kiss to the Witanagemot Club.
Mr Lochhead unveiled the new retailers' charter – signed by Aldi, Asda, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Morrison's, Sainsbury's, Tesco and Waitrose – as he published the Scottish Government's next steps in the first-ever national food and drink strategy.
Well, that's all fine and dandy. Great for English-hating Scots' bigots who can't bear to buy English, as well as people who simply see Scotland as a country alone, with no loyalty due elsewhere. Which it is not.
And I noticed recently that Sainsbury's and Tesco have changed the packaging on their sausages in England so that you can now buy such delights as "BRITISH Pork Licolnshire sausages".
And I've also heard that Tesco is intent on cleansing Englishness out of existence by renaming the (very) few English lines they have as "British" (more here).
There are indications that the major supermarkets have refused to brand English products as English to appease anti-English Scots' bigots. Read the CEP's findings here.
When it comes to our anti-English, Scots-biased supermarkets, we personally vote with our wallets and purses.
How about you?
A big kiss to the Witanagemot Club.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Peter Osborne - Mail Online - Woefully Ignorant About The British Parliament...
From Mail Online, Peter Osborne socks it to us:
You may as well not pursue the rest. Peter Osborne, in his first sentence, has already displayed his appalling ignorance of British history.
Yesterday was perhaps the darkest day in the 700-year-old history of the British Parliament.
There was NO British Parliament 700 years ago. And "Britain" did not exist as a political entity.
My goodness, how much do these wallies get paid? And who passes work like this for publication? Thank heavens for the blogosphere!
Labour's sinister revolution will tear Britain's 700-year-old constitution to shreds in weeks
Yesterday was perhaps the darkest day in the 700-year-old history of the British Parliament. This magnificent institution on the banks of the River Thames, the scene of so many of the greatest episodes in our national life, suffered two hammer blows.You may as well not pursue the rest. Peter Osborne, in his first sentence, has already displayed his appalling ignorance of British history.
Yesterday was perhaps the darkest day in the 700-year-old history of the British Parliament.
There was NO British Parliament 700 years ago. And "Britain" did not exist as a political entity.
My goodness, how much do these wallies get paid? And who passes work like this for publication? Thank heavens for the blogosphere!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Lord Richard of Ammanford - Basically Says Fuck England!
Wales On-line picks up on odious New Labour toady Liam Byrne praising up the Barnett Formula (despite its creator, Lord Joel Barnett, saying its unfair to England). Wales On-line makes quite a fair fist of it, pointing out:
In 2007-08 the Government spent £7,535 per head in England, £8,577 in Wales and £9,179 in Scotland.
Liam Byrne declares the Formula "fair enough" - keep pocketing the dosh whilst you can, Liam, the gravy train's heading for the cliff - and then some English-hating racist, apparently CHAIRMAN of the Inquiry, blasts in:
Mr Byrne was challenged over his “fair enough” assessment by the inquiry chairman, Lord Richard of Ammanford, who said: “It doesn’t actually mean anything. Look at the difference between Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland – is that fair?”
So, this Lord Richard of Ammanford is CHAIRMAN of the Inquiry, but quite plainly doesn't give a shit about England? And why doesn't he mention England? Because it's not "pure" or so-called "Celtic" enough? And yet, despite not rating a mention from his Lordship, England is getting the worst deal of all!
Lord Richard of Ammanford is highly biased and certainly not committed to what's good for ALL - get him OFF!
In 2007-08 the Government spent £7,535 per head in England, £8,577 in Wales and £9,179 in Scotland.
Liam Byrne declares the Formula "fair enough" - keep pocketing the dosh whilst you can, Liam, the gravy train's heading for the cliff - and then some English-hating racist, apparently CHAIRMAN of the Inquiry, blasts in:
Mr Byrne was challenged over his “fair enough” assessment by the inquiry chairman, Lord Richard of Ammanford, who said: “It doesn’t actually mean anything. Look at the difference between Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland – is that fair?”
So, this Lord Richard of Ammanford is CHAIRMAN of the Inquiry, but quite plainly doesn't give a shit about England? And why doesn't he mention England? Because it's not "pure" or so-called "Celtic" enough? And yet, despite not rating a mention from his Lordship, England is getting the worst deal of all!
Lord Richard of Ammanford is highly biased and certainly not committed to what's good for ALL - get him OFF!
Sunday, June 07, 2009
David Cameron - Just As Much An Anti-English Wanker As Gordon Brown...
Voting Conservative is, for many people, voting for the lesser of two evils.
And one of the things which adds to the sense of evil emanating from David Cameron's Tory Party is the not-so-great man's anti-English spoutings ("sour little Englanders!"), and Scots jingoism (like describing certain of his ancestors as "Scottish Empire builders" - who "conquered all sorts of parts of India").
And, of course, David Cameron has recently once more been up to his beloved Scotland, promising to "rule" that country with respect.
Not so, England, of course. Bugger the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question and health apartheid - better dead English people than a broken Union!
Whilst the Tories did very well in the local elections in England, they could have done much better. And in addressing the legitimate concerns of the electorate in England could have helped to halt the successes of the odious BNP.
On Conservatives.com, whilst relaying news about the English local elections, the site couldn't even bear to write the country's name. Read about the "local elections [UK rump, obviously] - 2009 live results" here.
David Cameron is just as much an anti-English wanker as Gordon Brown. He just talks posher.
And one of the things which adds to the sense of evil emanating from David Cameron's Tory Party is the not-so-great man's anti-English spoutings ("sour little Englanders!"), and Scots jingoism (like describing certain of his ancestors as "Scottish Empire builders" - who "conquered all sorts of parts of India").
And, of course, David Cameron has recently once more been up to his beloved Scotland, promising to "rule" that country with respect.
Not so, England, of course. Bugger the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question and health apartheid - better dead English people than a broken Union!
Whilst the Tories did very well in the local elections in England, they could have done much better. And in addressing the legitimate concerns of the electorate in England could have helped to halt the successes of the odious BNP.
On Conservatives.com, whilst relaying news about the English local elections, the site couldn't even bear to write the country's name. Read about the "local elections [UK rump, obviously] - 2009 live results" here.
David Cameron is just as much an anti-English wanker as Gordon Brown. He just talks posher.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Glenys Kinnock - Another Anti-English Appointment By Gordon Brown...
Amazing that Glenys Kinnock is to be the UK Minister for Europe.
Why? How?
We can only assume it's another of Gordon Brown's anti-English appointments. After all, Gordon signed the Scottish Claim of Right in 1989, vowing to put Scotland first in all he does, but he obviously wants to look after his other fellow so-called Celts as well ("Celt" - the ancient WHITE tribe myth, forming an, in reality, entirely imaginary fraternity between the people of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Ireland).
And we must remember what Glenys' hubby, dear old Neil Kinnock, once said about England in the sporting arena:
"I am pro-Britain in everything I do. I always support Britain. I support the British Lions on every occasion. I support any and every Welsh team on every occasion. And I support any and every team on every occasion when they are playing against England."
Glenys is probably of much the same ilk. She'll suit so-called "Celtic" Gordy down to the ground. Don't expect her to do a thing to advance England's interests. Quite the reverse.
Why? How?
We can only assume it's another of Gordon Brown's anti-English appointments. After all, Gordon signed the Scottish Claim of Right in 1989, vowing to put Scotland first in all he does, but he obviously wants to look after his other fellow so-called Celts as well ("Celt" - the ancient WHITE tribe myth, forming an, in reality, entirely imaginary fraternity between the people of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Ireland).
And we must remember what Glenys' hubby, dear old Neil Kinnock, once said about England in the sporting arena:
"I am pro-Britain in everything I do. I always support Britain. I support the British Lions on every occasion. I support any and every Welsh team on every occasion. And I support any and every team on every occasion when they are playing against England."
Glenys is probably of much the same ilk. She'll suit so-called "Celtic" Gordy down to the ground. Don't expect her to do a thing to advance England's interests. Quite the reverse.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
CEP: The UK establishment denies constitutional justice to England
The UK establishment avoids addressing the most outrageous constitutional injustice of all. It is the way England is being treated.
'The whole UK Establishment of politicians and media are rampaging about, like ferrets in a warrren of their own making, frothing, slavering and sweating over constitutional reform. But very deliberately they are all, every single one of them, ignoring even to mention, let alone address, the biggest political and constitutional injustice of all in the UK system of government. It is the way they are treating the nation of England.' That is the message of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament which met in Holborn in London on Wednesday May 27th to discuss the political crisis now facing Britain and its implications for England.
'And not just the politicians and the media. The academic Establishment as well. The very day we met Professor Vernon Bogdanor fellow of Brazenose College, professor of politics at Oxford, former tutor of David Cameron, advisor to the House of Commons Justice Committee on constitutional matters, was writing in the Guardian newspaper that there had been 're-distribution of power to politicians in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London'. We can only suppose that journalists and members of parliament can be excused the glaring mistakes they make when it comes to understanding the UK political system when the Oxbridge dons they consult can get it so hopelessly wrong. Likewise in the course of last week the Justice Committee itself and the Institute for Public Policy Research has produced publcations on devolution which deliberately shy away from addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the 1998 legislation.
'In the 1998 devolution legislation Scotland and Wales were given political, constitutional and legal recognition as distinct nations within the UK. Not England. They got independent self-rule through having their own parliament and assembly, Scotland got as much as 75% independent self rule. England got nothing. England politically and constitutionally does not even exist. Scottish and Welsh MPs can legislate in what is historically England's own House of Commons on every single aspect of English life. No English MP can as much as discuss Scotish matters, let alone legislate on them. Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling can make laws about education, health and social services, culture, sport, media, the list is endless, in respect of England. But the utter constitutional stupidity is that they have no say at all as MPs in those very same affairs in their own Scottish constituencies. Only Members of the Scottish Parliament have. Thanks to devolution Scottish students pay no university fees, Scottish pensioners no personal care charges, do not need to sell their houses, all Scottish council tax is frozen, the Welsh pay no prescription charges, the Scots and the Welsh pay no hospital parking charges. But the English people have to pay in every one of these instances. And worse than that, much worse, through their taxes, to the amount of £281 extra per person per annum, the English people pay for the benefits which the Scots and the Welsh receive and which they themselves are denied.
'The Guardian newspaper, just to take one example, devotes pages after page to pundits like Vernon Bogdanor pontificating on constitutional reform of government. The three Party leaders, Brown, Cameron and Clegg, are competing with each other to come up with the most sellable and vote-winning, programme. Not one of the whole lot of them throughout the UK Establishment, thinks of England. But we are thinking of England. The People of England are 80% of the UK population. Our people deserve justice. They deserve national recognition. They deserve the same degree of self-rule as the Scots have got. They deserve the same benefits the rest of the UK has been given, and given so lavishly. We will not rest from the 'mental fight' the English poet and mystic Blake demands of us, to achieve Jerusalem, the goal of justice and equality, for England.'
Contacts
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
'The whole UK Establishment of politicians and media are rampaging about, like ferrets in a warrren of their own making, frothing, slavering and sweating over constitutional reform. But very deliberately they are all, every single one of them, ignoring even to mention, let alone address, the biggest political and constitutional injustice of all in the UK system of government. It is the way they are treating the nation of England.' That is the message of the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament which met in Holborn in London on Wednesday May 27th to discuss the political crisis now facing Britain and its implications for England.
'And not just the politicians and the media. The academic Establishment as well. The very day we met Professor Vernon Bogdanor fellow of Brazenose College, professor of politics at Oxford, former tutor of David Cameron, advisor to the House of Commons Justice Committee on constitutional matters, was writing in the Guardian newspaper that there had been 're-distribution of power to politicians in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London'. We can only suppose that journalists and members of parliament can be excused the glaring mistakes they make when it comes to understanding the UK political system when the Oxbridge dons they consult can get it so hopelessly wrong. Likewise in the course of last week the Justice Committee itself and the Institute for Public Policy Research has produced publcations on devolution which deliberately shy away from addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the 1998 legislation.
'In the 1998 devolution legislation Scotland and Wales were given political, constitutional and legal recognition as distinct nations within the UK. Not England. They got independent self-rule through having their own parliament and assembly, Scotland got as much as 75% independent self rule. England got nothing. England politically and constitutionally does not even exist. Scottish and Welsh MPs can legislate in what is historically England's own House of Commons on every single aspect of English life. No English MP can as much as discuss Scotish matters, let alone legislate on them. Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling can make laws about education, health and social services, culture, sport, media, the list is endless, in respect of England. But the utter constitutional stupidity is that they have no say at all as MPs in those very same affairs in their own Scottish constituencies. Only Members of the Scottish Parliament have. Thanks to devolution Scottish students pay no university fees, Scottish pensioners no personal care charges, do not need to sell their houses, all Scottish council tax is frozen, the Welsh pay no prescription charges, the Scots and the Welsh pay no hospital parking charges. But the English people have to pay in every one of these instances. And worse than that, much worse, through their taxes, to the amount of £281 extra per person per annum, the English people pay for the benefits which the Scots and the Welsh receive and which they themselves are denied.
'The Guardian newspaper, just to take one example, devotes pages after page to pundits like Vernon Bogdanor pontificating on constitutional reform of government. The three Party leaders, Brown, Cameron and Clegg, are competing with each other to come up with the most sellable and vote-winning, programme. Not one of the whole lot of them throughout the UK Establishment, thinks of England. But we are thinking of England. The People of England are 80% of the UK population. Our people deserve justice. They deserve national recognition. They deserve the same degree of self-rule as the Scots have got. They deserve the same benefits the rest of the UK has been given, and given so lavishly. We will not rest from the 'mental fight' the English poet and mystic Blake demands of us, to achieve Jerusalem, the goal of justice and equality, for England.'
Contacts
Michael Knowles
CEP Media Unit. Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Justice Committee On Devolution - Politicians Still Do Not Want England To Have A Say In How It Is Governed...
In its report, Devolution: A Decade On, The Justice Committee had decided that devolution for England is unfinished business, and that England is locked in a "pre-devolution timewarp".
"But England, which has 84 per cent of the population, is the unfinished business of devolution-stuck in a pre-devolution time warp, while the rest of the UK has moved on. The funding formula is also a relic from earlier times, taking no account of the current need of the various nations and regions of the United Kingdom."
"But England, which has 84 per cent of the population, is the unfinished business of devolution-stuck in a pre-devolution time warp, while the rest of the UK has moved on. The funding formula is also a relic from earlier times, taking no account of the current need of the various nations and regions of the United Kingdom."
It's a bit too late to worry about that. Having started the process of devolution by respecting the existence of Wales and Scotland as nations, and giving their peoples a vote, the UK Government has no other option but to similarly respect England and extend the same right to the people of England.
It awes me that these politicians are still chuntering away, trying to decide our future, whilst in no way recognising our right to be treated in exactly the same way as the UK Government treated the Scots, Welsh and later the Northern Irish.
The arrogance of it!
Meanwhile, the findings of the committee don't appear to be widely reported at all in England.
The media is burying the devolution issue again, it seems...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
England 2018 - Brandish Those Scottish Colours And Be Proud!
Ah, England 2018...But hang on a bit! What's a Scots constituency MP doing there - unelected as PM, unaccountable to the electorate in England, and not terribly popular anywhere?
And why is David Beckham, delightful Nivea boy and "does my dick look big in these designer underpants? Go on - buy a pair!" merchant, holding a scarf which appears to be in Scots saltire colours?
Does the Scotland football team brandish blue and white and red and white scarves?
No?
Very sensible.
Big hat tip to Tommy English. Sorry, Tom, I nicked your picture!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Celts - A Modern (And Highly Exclusive) Fantasy?
From the fascinating Bloggin Fae the Burn blogspot:
However, anti-Englishness seems, in some quarters, to be acceptable. Northern Ireland-style sectarianism has often been described as "Scotland's Secret Shame" - but others now see anti-Englishness as a much bigger problem there. (Have a look at this page, and some of the posts - especially no. 109). The label "Celtic" can be one way that English people are alienated and branded as outsiders. Politics, nationalism and romantic nonsense are a heady combination - one which has even crept across the Atlantic into Appalachia.
Being half-Scots myself, I've always been highly sceptical about the "Celtic" thing, and the way it is used in a racist context: "We Scots/Welsh were here before you ENGLISH..."
The book, The Atlantic Celts looks like a fascinating read...
MILLIONS of people around the world think of themselves as Celtic and believe that their remote ancestors in the British Isles were Celts too. But many British prehistorians now argue that the idea that the pre-Roman peoples of the isles were Celts is misleading and probably just wrong. Why?
One fundamental, startling reason, is that no-one in Britain or Ireland called themselves "Celts" before 1700. Our earliest evidence for the identities of these peoples - the 2,000-year-old writings of their Greco-Roman neighbours - records Celts only on the continent, most notably the Gauls of modern France. The inhabitants of the isles were already called "British" and "Irish", and these were distinguished from the continental "Celts".
So where did the idea of insular Celts, ancient and modern, come from? It appears in the 18th century. "Celtic" came into use in the context of the isles as the result of the work of a pioneering linguist, the Welshman Edward Lhwyd, who demonstrated that Scots and Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton and related languages were also related to the extinct tongue of the ancient Gauls. He chose to call this family of dead and living languages "Celtic". Soon it was being used as an ethnic label for living peoples, and was applied to ancient monuments too. It became fixed in popular consciousness with remarkable speed. A century later, in "Rob Roy" Sir Walter Scott could refer to an 18th-century Highlander as a Celt without elaborating; his readers knew what he meant. By then, modern Celticness, and an ancient Celtic past, were part of agreed popular history. It has come to be believed that the Celtic ancestors were invaders from the continent.
I believe that the rapid uptake of belief in Celtic identity, and Ancient Celtic roots, was driven by the perception among Welsh, Scots and Irish that their several identities were in danger of being swamped by the new English-dominated superstate. Celticism provided an alternative, shared, non-English identity. Celtic identity, then, and British identity, are twins, both initially political creations of the 18th century. This in itself is nothing very surprising: every such identity is created at some time, for good contemporary reasons. Scottish and English identities also have such histories, but can be traced back much further. It is also almost universal for ethnic or national identities to claim roots in the distant past, which may be authentic or may be exaggerated, or spurious; it is an important way of legitimating our sense of self, and our claims to our place in the world.
Archaeology was a late addition to all this, only really developing in the later 19th century. As early discoveries were made, they were interpreted according to the already established Celtic model. Many seemed to fit it well: Britain, Ireland and Gaul all have hill-forts, and some magnificent ancient metalwork decorated in similar, exquisite patterns. But more recent research has probed much deeper into the Iron Age past and has found not evidence for Iron Age Celtic invasion, but basic continuity from earlier prehistory; these peoples were, mostly, already here.
Also, the evidence for types of houses, settlements, farming and economy, the way people lived, the things they made and used, and the ways in which they disposed of their dead, are not uniform and often not even very similar. There seem to have been many different peoples living in Britain, probably with a multiplicity of identities. It is implausible that they all thought of themselves as sharing common Britishness, let alone a wider Celticity.
The idea of overarching identities linking vast areas appeared briefly with the Romans, and more recently with the quite new ideas of Britishness, pan-Celticness and now, European integration. It is up to the peoples of the present to decide whether they wish to establish a Celtic Union, or a United States of Europe. But projecting Celtic identity on to the ancient peoples of the Britain may, ironically, be to rob them of their many, diverse, real self-identities.
However, anti-Englishness seems, in some quarters, to be acceptable. Northern Ireland-style sectarianism has often been described as "Scotland's Secret Shame" - but others now see anti-Englishness as a much bigger problem there. (Have a look at this page, and some of the posts - especially no. 109). The label "Celtic" can be one way that English people are alienated and branded as outsiders. Politics, nationalism and romantic nonsense are a heady combination - one which has even crept across the Atlantic into Appalachia.
Being half-Scots myself, I've always been highly sceptical about the "Celtic" thing, and the way it is used in a racist context: "We Scots/Welsh were here before you ENGLISH..."
The book, The Atlantic Celts looks like a fascinating read...
MILLIONS of people around the world think of themselves as Celtic and believe that their remote ancestors in the British Isles were Celts too. But many British prehistorians now argue that the idea that the pre-Roman peoples of the isles were Celts is misleading and probably just wrong. Why?
One fundamental, startling reason, is that no-one in Britain or Ireland called themselves "Celts" before 1700. Our earliest evidence for the identities of these peoples - the 2,000-year-old writings of their Greco-Roman neighbours - records Celts only on the continent, most notably the Gauls of modern France. The inhabitants of the isles were already called "British" and "Irish", and these were distinguished from the continental "Celts".
So where did the idea of insular Celts, ancient and modern, come from? It appears in the 18th century. "Celtic" came into use in the context of the isles as the result of the work of a pioneering linguist, the Welshman Edward Lhwyd, who demonstrated that Scots and Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton and related languages were also related to the extinct tongue of the ancient Gauls. He chose to call this family of dead and living languages "Celtic". Soon it was being used as an ethnic label for living peoples, and was applied to ancient monuments too. It became fixed in popular consciousness with remarkable speed. A century later, in "Rob Roy" Sir Walter Scott could refer to an 18th-century Highlander as a Celt without elaborating; his readers knew what he meant. By then, modern Celticness, and an ancient Celtic past, were part of agreed popular history. It has come to be believed that the Celtic ancestors were invaders from the continent.
I believe that the rapid uptake of belief in Celtic identity, and Ancient Celtic roots, was driven by the perception among Welsh, Scots and Irish that their several identities were in danger of being swamped by the new English-dominated superstate. Celticism provided an alternative, shared, non-English identity. Celtic identity, then, and British identity, are twins, both initially political creations of the 18th century. This in itself is nothing very surprising: every such identity is created at some time, for good contemporary reasons. Scottish and English identities also have such histories, but can be traced back much further. It is also almost universal for ethnic or national identities to claim roots in the distant past, which may be authentic or may be exaggerated, or spurious; it is an important way of legitimating our sense of self, and our claims to our place in the world.
Archaeology was a late addition to all this, only really developing in the later 19th century. As early discoveries were made, they were interpreted according to the already established Celtic model. Many seemed to fit it well: Britain, Ireland and Gaul all have hill-forts, and some magnificent ancient metalwork decorated in similar, exquisite patterns. But more recent research has probed much deeper into the Iron Age past and has found not evidence for Iron Age Celtic invasion, but basic continuity from earlier prehistory; these peoples were, mostly, already here.
Also, the evidence for types of houses, settlements, farming and economy, the way people lived, the things they made and used, and the ways in which they disposed of their dead, are not uniform and often not even very similar. There seem to have been many different peoples living in Britain, probably with a multiplicity of identities. It is implausible that they all thought of themselves as sharing common Britishness, let alone a wider Celticity.
The idea of overarching identities linking vast areas appeared briefly with the Romans, and more recently with the quite new ideas of Britishness, pan-Celticness and now, European integration. It is up to the peoples of the present to decide whether they wish to establish a Celtic Union, or a United States of Europe. But projecting Celtic identity on to the ancient peoples of the Britain may, ironically, be to rob them of their many, diverse, real self-identities.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Times Online - A Mission To Misinform The People Of England About Devolution - Bill Pickering As An Example...
Is Times Online, in the wake of its recent Populus Poll on devolution, and its shrieks about how successful devolution has been for Scotland, and how everybody supports it, being rather biased in its comments threads?
Comments published seem very few, and a deluded Scot often seems to be allowed the last word.
Take this:
"Dave, I'm afraid you're just plain wrong - the UK Government's own figures show that Scotland is a net contributor to the Union.
Click on the red text for the article.
And so it should be "controversial" - some of the oil and gas is England's.
The Tax Payers' Alliance found:
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
Click on red text for more.
And why should Scotland claim any of the oil for itself? This is supposed to be a "union" - surely resources are supposed to be SHARED?
And what's this "superior grant" Mr Pickford refers to? Scotland benefits from the Barnett Formula, whatever varying levels of public spending across England, England does not.
Comments published seem very few, and a deluded Scot often seems to be allowed the last word.
Take this:
"Dave, I'm afraid you're just plain wrong - the UK Government's own figures show that Scotland is a net contributor to the Union.
Bill Pickford, Arisaig, Scotland"
Click on the red text to go to the Times article and the comments thread.
From The Guardian:
Click on the red text for the article.
And so it should be "controversial" - some of the oil and gas is England's.
The Tax Payers' Alliance found:
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
Click on red text for more.
And why should Scotland claim any of the oil for itself? This is supposed to be a "union" - surely resources are supposed to be SHARED?
And what's this "superior grant" Mr Pickford refers to? Scotland benefits from the Barnett Formula, whatever varying levels of public spending across England, England does not.
But Bill Pickford clearly does not know that. And yet The Times allows this man the final word in the comments thread.
And as for "English regions" - what the heck?!!
Perhaps I'm being a little hasty. But several people, including myself, have contributed to this comments thread to correct Mr Pickering. And the comments have, so far, been unpublished. Not even one of them has appeared.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
CEP Press Release: CEP: MPs resorting to the Nuremberg war trials defence
‘If ever there was a moment when we really could do with England starting again just like Scotland with its own parliament, and shedding all the inanities, the vanities and the corrupt practices of both past and present in the way we are governed, it is now.’ That was the message put to all CEP blog readers by Gareth Young, Brighton member of the Campaign and co-editor of its website http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/blog/
‘If a British politician has ever told you that the reason that they don’t want an English parliament is because it would mean ‘an extra layer of politicians’ and ‘extra cost’, then now you know the real reason why. They don’t want an English Parliament because it will drive their Westminster gravy train up against the buffers. We have seen how Scotland, the moment it got its own parliament, free from the tentacles of Westminster and its centuries of corrupt practice, established the clearest of guidelines and rules for their MSPs. The moment two of its members were found to have broken its rules, they were made to resign. Here, we have scores of Cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers, junior cabinet ministers and backbenches milking the system which they and their colleagues past and present set up; and to date not one single resignation. They have preached ‘Britishness’ and British democracy but have undermined the concept through greed. They are money-grubbers feather-bedding their lifestyles. They have no claim to govern England. England needs a clean sheet to start again.’
‘Their argument ‘I complied with the rules’ is in essence the notorious Nuremberg Defence,’ Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit has added to Gareth’s message. ‘Not of course in scale. Of course not’. Yet legalistically and morally in essence the same. The war criminals argued in Nuremberg that they obeyed the law; here MPs argue they have complied with the rules. There is no conceptual difference. In Nuremberg exposure of wrongdoing was followed by retribution. There is no retribution whatsoever in this case. And these MPspr expect to get away with it all just by ‘apologising’ and saying it will be enough to change the rules. Not at all. They so argue because they want to hang on to monies which in the ‘court of public opinion’ they unfairly obtained. There has to be retribution. Either MPs should pay back the monies they took from the public purse, or they should face prosecution for breaking the law if, for example, they have not paid capital gains tax where it was owed. Or both. There is no gainsaying it any longer. England needs its own parliament where it can start again, with a clean sheet, with new men and women, bound by new rules, this time in this modern age subject to the full force of freedom of information legislation, transparent and translucent.’
‘If a British politician has ever told you that the reason that they don’t want an English parliament is because it would mean ‘an extra layer of politicians’ and ‘extra cost’, then now you know the real reason why. They don’t want an English Parliament because it will drive their Westminster gravy train up against the buffers. We have seen how Scotland, the moment it got its own parliament, free from the tentacles of Westminster and its centuries of corrupt practice, established the clearest of guidelines and rules for their MSPs. The moment two of its members were found to have broken its rules, they were made to resign. Here, we have scores of Cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers, junior cabinet ministers and backbenches milking the system which they and their colleagues past and present set up; and to date not one single resignation. They have preached ‘Britishness’ and British democracy but have undermined the concept through greed. They are money-grubbers feather-bedding their lifestyles. They have no claim to govern England. England needs a clean sheet to start again.’
‘Their argument ‘I complied with the rules’ is in essence the notorious Nuremberg Defence,’ Michael Knowles head of the CEP Media Unit has added to Gareth’s message. ‘Not of course in scale. Of course not’. Yet legalistically and morally in essence the same. The war criminals argued in Nuremberg that they obeyed the law; here MPs argue they have complied with the rules. There is no conceptual difference. In Nuremberg exposure of wrongdoing was followed by retribution. There is no retribution whatsoever in this case. And these MPspr expect to get away with it all just by ‘apologising’ and saying it will be enough to change the rules. Not at all. They so argue because they want to hang on to monies which in the ‘court of public opinion’ they unfairly obtained. There has to be retribution. Either MPs should pay back the monies they took from the public purse, or they should face prosecution for breaking the law if, for example, they have not paid capital gains tax where it was owed. Or both. There is no gainsaying it any longer. England needs its own parliament where it can start again, with a clean sheet, with new men and women, bound by new rules, this time in this modern age subject to the full force of freedom of information legislation, transparent and translucent.’
Monday, May 11, 2009
David Cameron - Another Tyrant?
So says David Cameron, who has stood for public office and is an MP - and possible Prime Minister in waiting - making a statement as part of the MPs' Expenses scandal.
RULE?
But surely our elected representatives should serve? OK, there must be leadership, at times difficult decisions must be taken, but I don't like the emphase on RULING on Mr Cameron's part.
And from what I've heard of his refusal to listen to the calls of the people of England for democratic parity within the so-called United Kingdom, I am very concerned that Cameron really does intend to RULE - refusing to listen to our wishes, and simply letting the devolution inequalities continue.
Do politicians these days really see themselves as RULING the electorate? And not as our elected representatives?
Hopefully this attitude is not too widespread, but David Cameron obviously has more in common with Gordon Brown than what he terms "Scottish blood" in his veins.
All hail the New Ruler in waiting!
God Help England!
God Help Democracy!
The Campaign for an English Parliament welcomes the result of the Times Populus poll
A special Populus poll for The Times, to mark the tenth anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament indicated that in England and Wales 41 per cent support the idea of an English parliament.
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution.. And what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practises and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
Contact:
Scilla Cullen: Tel@ 01483 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
However, Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), addressing a meeting of CEP members, asked why people in Wales were consulted about whether they supported an English Parliament 'The people of England were never consulted whether they wanted an Assembly for Wales or a Parliament for Scotland. Surely it is the people of England, not the Welsh, who should to be consulted if they want an English Parliament?'
'And why,' Mrs Cullen queried further, 'were we not given the figures for England? Clearly if the Times had cared to separate out the figures for England in this matter, the percentage in England supporting an English Parliament was most likely to be higher and in line with other recent polls that return figures of between 60 and 70%.
'We hear ad nauseam,' she said, 'Establishment pundits and the British government telling us that there is “no demand” for an English Parliament, yet again and again when asked, the people of England do want parity with the other countries of Britain. In the three most recent opinion polls their support ranged from 61% to 68%. Clearly the demand in England is at least as high at that in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, namely 44%, characterised by those same pundits as “the settled will of the Scottish people”, and much higher than the 25% of the Welsh electorate that voted for devolution.. And what irony that the present government was elected by just 21.59% of the electorate.
'Nevertheless, the will of the people of England continues to be studiously ignored by the British Political Class. Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties have set their faces against an English Parliament. They see it as a threat to their power and their whole life-style. We hear that David Cameron has said he will treat the people of Scotland with respect if the Conservative Party is returned to power at the next general election. Will that respect be extended to the wishes of the people of England? The Conservatives tell us that the UK cannot afford an English Parliament. The CEP says that we cannot afford the dubious, excessive, immoral practises and expenses of the members of the British Parliament. An English Parliament will be the golden opportunity to bring in root and branch reform of the corrupt way in which the Union Parliament operates.'
Contact:
Scilla Cullen: Tel@ 01483 833155 Email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
David Cameron - Brown Nosing His Beloved Scotland Again - And Leaving England Out In The Cold...
God, how we dislike David Cameron. And Gordon Brown, of course. But here is Cameron "Scottish blood in my veins" again, this time in The Telegraph, promising to "rule Scotland with respect".
Not England, of course. Nope, we are "sour Little Englanders" - and the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and health apartheid matter not. Better a deprived England, better dead English people on the so-called NHS, than a broken so-called Union.
If Cameron gets in it will be because Nulabour has been so foul, it will certainly be no endorsement of the man or his political morals.
God, how we dislike David Cameron...
Not England, of course. Nope, we are "sour Little Englanders" - and the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula and health apartheid matter not. Better a deprived England, better dead English people on the so-called NHS, than a broken so-called Union.
If Cameron gets in it will be because Nulabour has been so foul, it will certainly be no endorsement of the man or his political morals.
God, how we dislike David Cameron...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)