BELIEVE IN ENGLAND!

I believe in England!

The English Cross of St George flag, displayed with increasing frequency!

Why does England need to remain in constitutional union with nations who do not treat us as equals but who exploit us? These British nations are under-populated but repeatedly press for more immigration to England; nations which ignore the England’s huge contribution (over 80%) to the UK preferring to dwell on their much lesser contributions!

Why does England need to remain in political union with states who discount our interests, who disregard the density of England’s population and, instead, funnel illegal migrants through EU countries enabling them to enter England illegally? France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Poland and Italy all have more territory than the UK. Romania, and Greece, each have more land than England.

One need only recall the ‘wine lakes’, ‘butter mountains’ etc to be aware that the EU has been discredited for decades. Now we have population turbulence fanned by the EU’s ‘freedom of movement’ dogma! Funny how Belgium and Luxembourg are largely unaffected by the EU’s dangerous policies.

I believe in England! I also believe that remaining within the UK on present terms and remaining a member of the EU is is increasingly harmful to England and her people. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible if we are to survive.

SUPPORT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS ~ PUTTING ENGLAND FIRST!

What a nasty, misleading, divisive general election this is!

What a nasty, misleading, divisive general election we are experiencing! Nasty because of all the personal insults and invective. Misleading because warped or skewed accounts of past events are being purveyed. Divisive because representatives of the minor home nations have been given disproportionate prominence whilst those who wish to defend England’s [the majority’s] interests are suppressed by the mainstream media!

The Lib Dems won’t support the Conservatives. The SNP seeks to keep the Conservatives out of office! Neither Labour nor the Conservatives will co-operate with the SNP. The Conservative Leader, David Cameron, refuses a televised head-to-head exchange directly with the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband . . . and so it goes on!

An unsavoury element in the political debacle is the stated intention of party leaders who are not and will not be Members of Parliament, to seek to control actions taken by MPs who hitherto have been presumed to represent not only the interests of their particular constituents but also those of the UK as a whole. Instead, these minority representatives intend to subordinate the interests of the vast majority (perforce in England) to their narrow, exclusive minority interests! Who needs reminding that Scotland accounts for merely 8.3% of the UK’s population and Wales at 4.7% even less!

Quite recently [8th April] the Labour Leader announced a new policy of taxing ‘Non-Doms’ and immediately the Conservatives and Lib Dems went into overdrive alleging that Labour’s ‘Shadow Chancellor’ opposes that policy. How refreshingly novel it would be if opposing parties admitted where they agreed particular policies and emphasised the benefits of their other policies!

In short the Borstal conduct of PMQs has been transferred to the political campaigning sphere. In Yorkshire ~ more particularly in Leeds ~ Eric Pickles Pickles is reported in the Yorkshire Post as saying “there was a clear plan by Labour leaders to hinder the Conservative attempt to pass on job creation powers”. Indeed, the Posts’ headline is: “Labour leaders plotting to scupper Yorkshire devolution, Tory claims”. HERE IS A LINK: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/election-politics/politics-and-election-news/labour-leaders-plotting-to-scupper-yorkshire-devolution-tory-claims-1-7197605  

In the same report, Shadow Local Government Secretary Hilary Benn is quoted as saying: “There is a tide flowing in this country in favour of devolution. Councils and the communities they represent, very simply, want to have more say over the decisions that affect the places in which they live and the way the economy is going to grow and develop. A Labour government will pass power back to communities across England, reversing 100 years of centralisation.” 

The core concern which shines out to me is that neither of these parties, indeed none of the Brit parties, intend to treat England and her people fairly but scheme to deceive us into believing that we will be receiving devolved powers similar to those in Scotland and Wales. In reality, they plan to devolve powers to PARTS of England, NOT to England as national entity! These schemes are bogus and enable those in positions of power and privilege to cling onto their offices and, worse, to avoid setting a budget for England which would be comparable to that (for example) enjoyed by Scotland and should be of the order of £300billion! The shabby, piecemeal approach inflicted on England by British politicians will perpetuate the administrative shambles currently to be seen in our Education, Health, Social Services and Transport. 

Real power takes the form of funding but, under CON/LAB/LIBDEM policies, control of the disbursement of funding will remain with the British Government which can vary funding each year and reduce it. So much for devolution to England! So much for devolution of real power! 

The current crop of British politicians, whether they are at state level or local government level, are determined to prevent England from having a constitutional presence and with it a role in administering her own affairs.

If the people of England wish control their (our) destiny,  they must recognise that fundamental differences are not restricted to those between British political parties [Labour v Conservatives, Greens v UKIP etc]  but between those who regard their national identity as English with a loyalty to England and those who do not! Regrettably, there are far, far too many of the latter predominating in England’s politics and not only diminishing democracy but doing so to short-change us, not least in Yorkshire! We know who they are. They include Yorkshire Forward, the Hannah Mitchell Foundation, UAF and Hate not Hope!

Only one party exists to put England at the heart of our affairs! It is the English Democrats, of course!

 

 

Well, do YOU believe anything Cameron promises?

I wonder how long it took Cameron’s apparatchiks to concoct his excuse for failing to carry out his promises before the 2010 General Election not to raise VAT? Five years it seems, although this excuse could well have been trotted out well within the first twelve months of his coalition agreement being operated.

Dodgy Dave, ostensibly out of his depth!

It appears that we are expected to swallow the fact that he was not in government and unable to gauge the real situation when making his grandiose promise. What about the reported meetings with senior civil servants months prior to May 2010, ostensibly to familiarise the Conservative Opposition with the processes of government by reason of them having been out of office for fourteen years and Cameron not having been in office at all? Of course it never occurred to dodgy Dave that it would have been (and still would be) more honourable to refrain from make such reckless promises!

Not only has Cameron failed to carry out his promise to half the Budget deficit and reduce immigration to “tens of thousands”, he now expects Miliband to make similar types of commitments in opposition about National Insurance etc ~ NOT that I have any brief for the Labour leader, mind you!

Of course we shouldn’t forget the company that Cameron has been keeping. Here I have in mind, amongst others, Nick (“I’m thorry, I’m thorry, I’m tho tho thorry!”) Clegg of greenhouse burning fame. [SEE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1193693/Id-drunk-I-irresponsible-Criminal-Nick-Clegg-regrets.html ] His excuse for that was his inebriated state, and he attempted to pass it off as a “drunken prank!” . . . but what was his excuse for getting drunk?

Nick Clegg, screwed up . . . again!

Who needs reminding that old Nick and his associates were “pledged” not to increase university tuition fees, but we all now know what THAT particular pledge was (is?) worth! General election pledges about university tuition fees have ‘form’ and are only of note for their reverse effect. After all, the Rt Hon Anthony Blair was “pledged” in the 2001 General Election not to introduce ‘top-up’ fees and . . had . . legislated to prevent them! Clegg’s counterfeit excuse for reneging on his particular election compact was that it was necessary to reduce the Budget deficit. It would have been more credible had he claimed that he’d agreed it whilst drunk!

Having mucked up last year’s exclusive Scottish Referendum, Cameron now promises to arrange a referendum on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the EU sometime in the next Parliament . . . but who really believes him? Remember that very unsatisfactory ‘AV Referendum’ which held out the prospect of changing the voting system but omitted the one option which may well have attracted most support.

More recently, Cameron stated during PMQs on 25th March in answer to Miliband’s question whether he would raise VAT in the next Parliament that he would not . . . but, again, who really believes him? Who really believes that the Conservatives would not raise the rate of VAT at some time during the next five years should they be in power?

Fasten your seat belts for another five weeks of the Brit parties making more incredible promises and telling us how bad their opponents are rather than emphasising how good their own policies are, but then, consistent with their ‘dodgy’ manifestos, their respective campaigns would be so much weaker!

No wonder they avoid mention the issue of an English Parliament and even more so the English Democrats!

English Democrats 2015 General Election Video

General Election 2015 ~ Televised debates to exclude English representation

 

Robin Tilbrook, English Democrats Leader

So great is the British establishment’s fear of English national identity that it seeks to suppress it whenever and where ever possible by any means it can.  We can observe this, for example, in its treatment of the English Defence League (EDL) which it contrives to discredit by characterising it as violent.

On each occasion that the EDL organises a march or demonstration, unionist gangs such as “Hope not Hate” and “Unite Against Fascism” are permitted to mount simultaneous counter-marches which we are expected to believe are spontaneous expressions of indignation, and which invariably culminate in violent clashes.  Inevitably, the EDL is blamed for these disturbances and it is EDL activists who are arrested, thus tarnishing the English EDL!

British Conservative MP William Hague (supported by the now discredited British Labour MP, Jack Straw) once said in a BBC Radio Four broadcast: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.” Indeed, Straw (then Home Secretary) himself said that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland” on the Radio 4 programme “Brits”. The broadcast was examining what it now means to be British.

Dangerous to what? Dangerous to the British establishment and the British union of course! The nation of England, accommodating 85% of the UK’s population, is the mainstay of the British state.  Even so, England and the English are too often (mis)represented as Britain and British.

Indeed, Scots in particular are placated to the extent of being given a significantly disproportionate share of British Exchequer funding and England’s natural majority undemocratically is nullified by various stratagems.  One of the latest “wheezes” is the notion dreamt up by the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon aided and abetted by Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Woods (too much oestrogen here perhaps?) that any referendum on the question of Britain’s continued EU membership should be decided by the majority of votes in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  This would mean that a majority of the 40 million voters in England would be trumped by a majority of the 6 million voters elsewhere in the UK but there has not been one peep from Cameron and the British Parliament rejecting this anti-England tactic!

Against this anti-democratic and anti-English background it should not be really surprising that, once again, British broadcasters have contrived to exclude an expressly England presence and English voice.  Yes, 7 party leaders have been invited to participate in these so called “TV Election Debates” of whom merely 3 are actually MPs whilst 2 of the others are leaders of parties which promote the interests of approximately 11% in aggregate of the UK’s voters.

Yes, Scotland and Wales are to be represented by Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Woods respectively, neither of whom are themselves MPs, nor are UKIP’s Nigel Farage and the Greens’ Natalie Bennett, of course!

So, who is to represent the interests of England and the English? Not Cameron, nor Miliband nor Clegg . . . the very idea is laughable.

It would seem that the English Democrats who promote the 53 million people of England are simply too dangerous, and so, English Democrats’ leader Robin Tilbrook is being excluded.

Could it be that Robin would appear far more statesmanlike than any of the other party leaders despite the fact that two of them (Cameron and Clegg) are cloaked, so to speak, with the trappings of office.  Clearly the risk posed by including the English Democrats leader in televised debates is just too dangerous to take.  After all, it would give English Democrats a prominence the British establishment is desperate to avoid, especially now that the Union is disintegrating before our eyes.

Due to the unprincipled incompetence of Messrs Clegg and Miliband led by Cameron (whose dad came from Aberdeen), the result of the 2014 Scotland Referendum was rendered questionable by their eleventh hour interference in the Referendum Campaign together with many other British MPs who travelled at public expense to Scotland to promote a ‘No’ vote. The interference included the ‘vow’ to Scotland of more powers and financial provision for which those leaders had no electoral mandate.

The supreme irony is that, having arranged a referendum in Scotland which excluded the other parts of the UK most importantly England, British MPs then involved themselves directly in it.  Had they not rashly interfered with the Campaign in Scotland, the result would now be regarded as being indisputably decisive!  Now, we have the spectacle of the SNP’s Sturgeon and Salmond being able to broadcast courtesy of the BBC (and other broadcasters) about how they intend to exercise power via the British Parliament over England’s interests but without the only politically active English nationalist party being given a similar opportunity to represent and safeguard England’s interests. This might be British justice, but it certainly is not English fair play!

Our so called ‘representative democracy’ is unrepresentative of the vast majority of British electors and is as rotten as the Palace of Westminster which itself is now crumbling and in need of radical restoration due to the prolonged neglect of its inadequate incumbents.

_________________________________________

SHAME ON ANDREW MITCHELL, AND SHAME ON THE BRITISH NEWS MEDIA

Andrew Mitchell, an MP who has paid a heavy price for his bad temper, indiscipline and bad judgement!

_____________________________

The focus solely on what Andrew Mitchell MP did or did not say in the so-called Plebgate affair ignores a far more important aspect [consequence?] of his conduct: the effect of that type of conduct on security.

Custodians of entrance to and exit from ‘sensitive’ buildings (amongst which 10 Downing Street is now firmly established as being one such no less than any Ministry of Defence building) are charged with controlling not only who enters and leaves the premises, but how they do so.  It is not for any individual, however highly placed, to seek to interfere with that function merely for their own personal convenience.

Such events carry the propensity to impair this element of security and, not solely the security of the individual challenging the operation of this function, but also the security of its custodians plus, most importantly, the security of all others present in the building.  Where there is any authority, albeit indirect authority, arbitrarily interfering in this security function, there is no natural limit and consequently an ambiguity, an unnecessary doubt is created about its control.  Doubt or confusion about the operation of security inevitably diminishes it, and does so quite unnecessarily.

Imagine a crisis emerging in which the entrance to No 10 came suddenly to be threatened by a group of armed insurgents against a history in which Mitchell’s demands and those of other government ministers had often been conceded by the police guards.  Say Mitchell himself at was present that moment and about to depart, is it not likely that the police in reacting to the danger would hesitate, even momentarily, in taking action to secure his and their personal safety and that of the premises?  How unfortunate if such hesitation had serious consequences; all the more unfortunate if they were unnecessary and caused by the situation created by Mitchell’s abuse of his position!  Perhaps this is regarded as fanciful but, in truth, it is a logical result of such high-handed conduct!

The writer recalls having been told many decades ago by a security guard on one of the entrances to the Admiralty (which name itself indicates how long ago) that everyone was required to show his pass, even the First Sea Lord, then Lord Louis Mountbatten, who always did so without demurring . . . but then, he had been involved in actual combat and knew the need for discipline in such matters.

The bottom line is that Andrew Mitchell by his conduct has demonstrated how unfit he is to hold high office.  If the public service in England still has any real value, Mr Mitchell’s career in our politics will be nearing its end. Shame on Andrew Mitchell for his failure to recognise the impact of his intemperate behaviour on security, and shame on the British news media for failing to comprehend this and to report it! English citizens deserve better!

Some MPs in England called [by the BBC & others] “English MPs”!

In support of my previous blog entitled “Don’t be deceived by misleading references to “English MPs”!” I list below some of the MPs occupying Parliamentary Constituencies in England captured by the lazy and misleading description “English MPs” which is akin to referring to “the NHS” (instead of “NHS England”!)!

To the list of Conservative Party Scots, could added British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is on record of publicly making a number of pro-Scottish comments eg “There’s Scottish blood flowing through my veins” to Andrew Marr on a BBC “Politics Show” and that he would fight “all the sour Little Englanders”. On the other hand, he declared that he would not want to be First Minister of England.

To the All Parties Brit list could be added Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

Surely, we all believe in a properly informed electorate!

Conservative Party Scots:

Liam Fox [Somerset North]
Ian Liddell-Grainger [Bridgwater & Somerset West]
James Gray  [Wiltshire North]
Eleanor Laing [Epping Forest]
Alan Duncan [Rutland & Melton]
Iain Duncan Smith [Chingford & Woodford Green]
Cheryl Gillan [Chesham & Amersham]
Michael Gove [Surrey Heath]
Mary Macleod [Brentford & Isleworth]
Anne McIntosh [Thirsk & Malton]
Mark Menzies [Fylde]
Malcolm Rifkind [Kensington]
Iain Stewart [Milton Keynes South]
Rory Stewart [Penrith & The Border]
Graham Stuart [Beverley & Holderness]

Labour Party Scots :

Jim Dobbin [Heywood & Middleton] (deceased Sep 2014, by-election pending)
Jim Fitzpatrick [Poplar & Limehouse]
Tessa Jowell [Dulwich & West Norwood]
Steve McCabe [Birmingham Selly Oak]
Fiona Mactaggart [Slough]
Pat McFadden [Wolverhampton South East]
George Mudie [Leeds East]

(All Parties) Welsh:
Con – Nigel Evans [Ribble Valley]
Lib Dems – Simon Hughes [Bermondsey & Old Southwark]
Con – Bernard Jenkin [Harwich & Essex North]
Con – Julian Lewis [New Forest East]
Lib Dems – Stephen Williams [Bristol West]

(All Parties) Brits:
Lab – Liam Byrne [Birmingham Hodge Hill]
Lab – Simon Danczuk [Rochdale]
Con – Rehman Chishti [Gillingham & Rainham]
Con – David Davis [Haltemprice & Howden]
Con – Nick de Bois [Enfield North]
Lab – Gloria de Perio [Ashfield]
Con – Jonathan Djanogly [Huntingdon]
Lab – Louise Ellman [Liverpool Riverside]
Lab – Natascha Engel [Derbyshire North East]
Con – Mark Francois [Rayleigh & Wickford]
Con – Sam Gyimah [Surrey East]
Con – William Hague [Richmond (Yorks)]
Lab – Kate Hoey [Vauxhall]
Con – Nick Hurd  [Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner]
Lab – Daniel Kawcynski [Shrewsbury & Atcham]
Lab – Sadiq Khan [Tooting]
Con – Kwasi Kwarteng [Spelthorne]
Lab – David Lammy [Tottenham]
Con – Oliver Letwin [Dorset West]
Lab – Khalid Mahmood [Birmingham Perry Bar]
Lab – Shabana Mahmood [Birmingham Ladywood]
Lab – Siobhain McDonagh [Mitcham & Morden]
Lab – Catherine McKinnell [Newcastle upon Tyne North]
Lab – Chi Onwurah [Newcastle upon Tyne Central]
Lab – Priti Patel [Witham]
Lab – Dawn Primarolo [Bristol South]
Lab – Yasmin Qureshi [Bolton South East]
Con – Jacob Rees-Mogg [Somerset North East]
Lab – Virendra Sharma [Ealing Southall]
Con – Alok Sharma [Reading West]
Lab – Marsha Singh [Bradford West]
Lab – Gisella Stuart (nee Gschaider, born in West Germany) [Birmingham Edgbaston]
Con – Gareth Thomas [Harrow West]
Con – Nadhim Zahawi [Stratford-on-Avon]

We are governed by dishonourable MPs!

The action of the three (or was it four?) Brit party leaders [plus Labour Party MPs en masse] visiting Scotland during the final phase of the Scotland Referendum was not only dishonourable but gross interference!

It was dishonourable because they used their positions to publicy convey opinions, opportunity they denied the people of England (and Wales, and Northern Ireland)!

It was gross interference because they significantly changed the circumstances in which the ballot was being conducted and effected that change during the period of the campaign and after hundreds of thousands of voters had already cast their votes.

Worse . . . those parliamentarians acted undemocratically: they made commitments for which they had no mandate from Britain’s electors nor authority from their parliamentary colleagues.

Cameron as British Prime Minister must take most blame for such shabby, undignified and unwise action. Already doubts have arisen that those parliamentarians will be unable to meet their unauthorised, commitments ~ commitments borne not out of a sense of fairness, equality and desire to facilitate proper self-determination, but commitments borne out of sordid attempts to gain party advantage.

Already, there have been consequences in the form of disturbances in the centre of Glasgow City one of Scotland’s largest communities with a majority wishing to secede from the UK.

Already the debate about England’s constitutional position has descended into unseemly confusion, much of which has (in this writer’s opinion) been deliberately created by too many who live in England, who do not identify with us English but who wish to conceal that. There are inappropriate references to “English MPs” not only by non-English politicians and other commentators, but also by BBC presenters who really ought to know better!

Michael Fallon MP for Sevenoaks and Defence Secretary, is NOT an English MP

It is not only improper for the likes of Michael Gove and Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox and Stephen Williams and Michael Fallon (as but five of many examples) to refer to themselves or be referred to as “English MPs”;  they are MPs representing England Constituencies or, to be more concise, “England MPs”! I believe that this deliberate ambiguity is created to deceive voters in England and is dishonourable!

Stephen Williams MP for Bristol West, is NOT an English MP!

The honesty and integrity [not excluding intentions] of MPs who contrive to get elected in England by reason of being British but who do not regard themselves as having English national identity must be seriously questioned. There is copious evidence that such MPs invariably put the interests of their chosen national identity before that of England and the English, one need look no further than Tony Blair for evidence of that. In common parlance, they are carpetbaggers!

Michael Gove MP for Surrey Heath, is NOT an English MP!

Not only is the honesty and integrity of MPs called into question, but that of BBC operatives! In addition to frequently referring to “English MPs” thereby implying that most if not all MPs from England’s Constituencies are English, the BBC mounts discussion after discussion in which the participants not only fail to declare their chosen national identity and thus their particular interest in the matter under discussion, but the BBC minimises (if it does not omit) any true representation of English opinion.

No wonder voters are increasingly repelled by politicians and their untruths!

Devolved responsibility and no English National Parliament

Ed Miliband, Labour Leader ~ mad & anti-English

Voters in England should be in no doubt that the Brit parties in Westminster [Conservatives, Lib Dems & Labour] have no intention of creating a separate English Parliament, with separate bill drafting facilities and a separate executive. Their various weasel words are intended to deceive us.

Key code phrases include “nations and regions of the UK” with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being the nations, and with England comprising some form(s) of ‘regions’. The latest wheeze is “city regions” whereby power is supposed to be being devolved but, in reality, it will be responsibility with only a fraction of the funding Westminster expends.

Money is power and, if funding is reduced so also is real power reduced.

Moreover, the British Parliament will retain power over London (instead of a  separate English Parliament having that power) because that’s the Brits want. The British Parliament will retain the power of reducing the funding of those “city regions” and, as experience shows, will exercise that power arbitrarily and variably according to the perceived political complexion of the particular “city region”. This is low-grade statesmanship!

Local government in England is a matter which the English should deal with, not interfering mischievous busybodies from the other nations. ONLY A SEPARATE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT AND EXECUTIVE WITH SEPARATE BILL DRAFTING FACILITIES WILL DEAL WITH THE SITUATION FACING US!

Another deceitful formula is “English votes for English laws” which is narrower in scope than “English votes for English matters“ but, hey ho, English voters are deemed to be dumb enough to accept this without protest!

British Prime Minister David Cameron, counterfeit & confused

The excuses for avoiding fair treatment are legion! An old favourite trotted out again in the last day is that, in a federal system England would be too dominant and we can’t have that, can we. The essence of democracy generally is the will of the majority, but this must be subverted to placate the minorities! England’s role is to supply wealth and resources, and defer to the interests of the other nations, Scotland in particular.

Another specious argument lies in the allegation that it is difficult to single out purely English matters! Fancy that! Somehow it is never difficult to single out Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish matters even though (according to this excuse) they must be enmeshed with England’s . . . and never, it seems, with each others’.

The plain fact is that England’s interests are (as usual) to be subordinated to the interests of unrepresentative political parties. Cameron seeks to disadvantage the Labour MPs by diverting yet more power to Scotland thereby reducing their power and, better still, reducing the their number in Parliament! Ed Miliband, despite having been born in England, eschews English national identity in common with British Prime Minister Cameron.

Miliband in his desperate efforts to attract electoral support in England, proposes various ways of devolving power. Miliband says he wants a “constitutional convention” after the [2015] election to discuss devolution plans for England, thereby creating yet more unnecessary delay. He claims a series of constitutional changes are necessary including the case for a senate of the nations and regions. This would be another body ~ like the British-Irish Council ~ in which England being the ‘regions’ and English interests would be unrepresented whilst others divide the spoils!

This mad, anti-English man proposes a ‘convention’ which will be a form of semi-representative assembly going beyond elected MPs and would begin before the next election with every nation and region in the country engaged in dialogue with the people about how power needs to be dispersed, not just in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but in England too. [SEE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29281819 ] Such course will enable him and his henchmen to portray his schemes as being those of the people of England. We will be expected to trust the honesty of this self-alienated person and I for one do not!

None of the Brit parties will afford a referendum to the voters of England . . . not even one! In marked contrast, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have each have more than  two referendums of course.

The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are vastly over-represented by comparison the English in the British Parliament:

England         533 MPs for 38.6 million voters [ie 72,420 voters per MP]
Scotland              59 MPs for 4.0 million voters            [ie 67,797 voters per MP]
Wales                  40 MPs for 2.3 million voters             [ie 57,500 voters per MP]

In addition, here are the number of members in each national assembly compared with a non-existent equivalent for England 38.6 million voters:

Wales             60 seats for 2.3 million voters. [ie 38,333 voters per seat]  This is equivalent to 1,007 seats for an English Parliament.

Scotland      129 seats for 4.0 million voters. [ie 31,008 voters per seat]  This is equivalent to 1,245 seats for an English Parliament.

Northern Ireland    108 seats for 1.2 million voters. [ie 11,111 voters per seat] This is equivalent to 3,474 seats for an English Parliament.

These figures indicate that there are savings to be made with an English Parliament: the number of MPs in the British Parliament could be reduced to around 60 and the number of seats in the current devolved assemblies also ‘rationalised’.

It is time that England and her people received a ‘fair crack of the whip’! REMEMBER: the people of England account for some 85% of the population of the UK, and we now know that 4% of the UK’s people who live in Scotland have been able to record their dissatisfaction with the UK and their desire to secede.

There will be no real and beneficial change until voters in England realise that we are not properly or fairly represented in the British Parliament.

ONLY THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS PUT THE INTERESTS OF ENGLAND AND HER PEOPLE FIRST!

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL ENGLISH PATRIOTS

Well, we’ve told you repeatedly that the Brit parties . . . Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems . . . do NOT represent England and the English, and now there can be no doubt!

Collectively, these parties have presided over a situation in which Scotland has been given a referendum on a matter (secession from the UK) which is not devolved but reserved to the British Government in Westminster, London, despite the Scottish National Party (SNP) having won merely 6 seats [10.2%] out of a total of 59 in the 2010 General Election.

The excuse for giving this exclusive referendum was the SNP’s performance in the 2011 elections to the Scottish Assembly when it won 69 seats [53.4%] out of a total of 129.

Regardless of the effect on England and the rest of the UK, we English are excluded from recording an opinion on the matter.

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, himself the son of a Scot born in Aberdeen, has visited Scotland repeatedly to express his opinion on the matter, an opportunity denied to voters in  England and the rest of the UK.

Panicked by the prospect of a majority of Scottish voters supporting separation, MPs from the Coalition and Labour parties first travelled into London at public expense and thence to Edinburgh using their positions to express opinions on Scotland’s referendum, an opportunity denied to voters in  England and the rest of the UK.

Panicked by the prospect of a majority of Scottish voters supporting separation, MPs from the Coalition and Labour parties are now vying with each other to tender bribes in the form of yet more devolved powers to Scotland, none of which were previously mentioned in any party election manifesto and for which there is no mandate.

Only today (16th September), Gordon Brown MP (former British Prime Minister), in an act of pure demagoguery has committed Labour to maintaining the Health service in Scotland as a public service; this is in marked contrast to his actions affecting England during the time he was British Chancellor of the Exchequer & Prime Minister when he presided over widespread adoption of cost-inefficient PFI arrangements in NHS England.

Where is England and its 53 million citizens in all this? Nowhere to be seen I’m afraid!

England has never been afforded a referendum on the devolution of powers to a national assembly, unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

Whilst Scots in power have claimed a national governing body for themselves, they (and the Welsh) have assiduously denied the people of England OUR own national parliament. The reason for this is self-evident: they are fearful that their positions of power and influence will be called into question.

Be in no doubt that further discrimination against the people of England is threatened by the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems! THEY scheme to ‘balkanise’ England, creating so called ‘city-regions’ which will enable them to disguise the reduced funding for English people’s services. THEY will not permit the English as a nation to determine our own system of local government.

As for devolving more power locally, the mere suggestion is risible. We all know that money is power ~ indeed, the late Robert Maxwell and Jimmy Savile wielded it in their individual ways ~ but public money is the last element the current crop of politicians intend to devolve to local level in England. Oh no! There is the policy of austerity (imposed mainly on England, of course!), and all that will be devolved is RESPONSIBILITY without sufficient resources, which will enable you to blame local councillors rather than the greedy, mendacious British politicians which infest the Westminster Parliament.

There are too many candidates elected in England who subordinate us and our interests to their first loyalty, to other interests.  In recent decades, there has been abundant evidence to support this conclusion; it is a corruption of so called ‘representative democracy’ by carpetbaggers, by counterfeit candidates masquerading as being representative of our interests. THIS is why voters in England have been denied a referendum on an English Parliament, why our students pay the highest tuition fees, why we endure prescription charges, why we pay for our Social Care Services etc etc.

The English are treated as fourth class citizens in the UK. We are not treated more favourably in any particular matter! If we were, who truly believes that the vociferous grousers in Scotland and elsewhere would not be repeatedly reminding us of such treatment in ways similar to their persistent whining about the 1989 Poll Tax which, in the event, was inflicted on us also!

The Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties parachute non-English candidates at the expense of local candidates. Surely Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish candidates would (should) rather serve their own countries and secure election there. Such candidates standing in England are questionable and where electors are deceived into believing that they are ‘one of us’, English, their honour and motives are surely tainted.

If voters in England really want change, really to be properly represented, they will have to stop voting for Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem candidates! Voting for particular candidates simply because you think they have more chance of being elected, is really wasting your vote. It seems absurd to vote for your second or third or even third preference rather than vote for your first choice because you believe your first choice preference will not be elected; it is hardly a matter of high principle!

If sufficient voters supported other candidates, who knows what the outcome might be? Short of that, electors in England are doomed to endure similar unrepresentative politicians with loyalties elsewhere [ie Scotland, or Wales or N Ireland], and diverting England’s wealth accordingly.

SUPPORT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS, THE ONLY PARTY PUTTING ENGLAND AND HER PEOPLE FIRST!

A Celtic Confederation?

The English are invariably ignored in constitutional matters, but we really are the nation to be consulted.

Whether or not Scotland bites the bullet and embraces separation from the security of union with England, it is suggested that serious consideration should be given to establishing a Celtic Confederation of  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which might even be extended to include Ireland.

Such an arrangement might commend itself to the peoples of Wales and Northern Ireland in particular who otherwise would be too wary of attempting to striking out on their own. It would also have the advantage of  relieving England and her people of much of the burden of having to prop up and subsidise those persistently grumbling communities.

Moreover, by investigating this possibility, the people of Wales may well discover how fraternal the people of Scotland actually are.

Remember, you first saw this novel constitutional suggestion here, a constitutional arrangement proposed on an English blog, a Team England idea which is imaginative and, unlike Scotland’s, inclusive!!

Why is ‘English’ omitted from ethnic monitoring?

Many visitors to this blog will be aware that ‘English’ is deliberately excluded as a particular category from ethnic monitoring. This is part of an undeclared policy of gradually destroying England as a national entity and with her the English as a particular ethnic group. Amazingly, it is a policy executed in plain sight! In many other contexts this would be regarded as a form of ethnic cleansing.

This policy started to be implemented in earnest with the 2001 Census of England and Wales and is shown in sharp relief by comparison with the 2001 Census of Scotland where another standard is in operation. The policy is continued with the 2011 Censuses. A particular irony is the inclusion of ‘Polish’ in the 2011 Census of Scotland whilst ‘English’ continues to be excluded.

HERE ARE SPECIMEN IMAGES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE  2011 CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES FOR ENGLAND & SCOTLAND:

Invariably, ethnic monitoring forms used by schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, local councils etc etc in England start with “White British” and these forms are based on the categories devised for censuses. In Scotland, the first category is “White Scottish” and the second “Other White British”. The “White Other” box may be ticked and “English” recorded, but such entries will merely be aggregated with the other “White British” forms.

This policy was introduced by the British Government dominated by Scots and in which the so called ‘great offices of state’ were occupied by Scots:  Tony Blair (Prime Minister), Derry Irvine (Lord Chancellor), Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer), Robin Cook (Foreign Secretary), George Robertson (Defence Secretary), Alistair Darling (Chief Secretary), Donald Dewar (Scottish Secretary), Ann Taylor (Leader of the Commons), Gavin Strang (Transport Secretary) plus other Scots in non-cabinet posts.

More recently, the policy is evidenced by references to ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ in the context of exchanges about the future of England and the English in the aftermath of the current referendum about Scotland’s future from which the English (and Welsh) are excluded; there is a wilful refusal to use the words ‘England’ and ‘English’ with ‘rest of the UK’ being preferred.

Not only Labour politicians operate or support this anti-English policy, but also the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP. Only the English Democrats put first the interests of England and her people as a distinct nation.

Why don’t we tell the Scots to shove off!

In a personal view (with which the Daily Mail disagrees) SIMON HEFFER says what we fear many English people think

By Simon Heffer
Published: 00:55, 10 September 2014 | Updated: 10:07, 10 September 2014

Alex Salmond’s offensive comparison of Scots voting for independence to the ending of apartheid and blacks being given the vote in South Africa took the rank dishonesty of the nationalists’ campaign to a new low yesterday.

Mandela went to prison for his beliefs, something that doesn’t appear to have happened to any Scottish Nationalists.  

And, far from being victims of a cruel and unjust system, they have been encouraged to participate in the political process, and to live in a Union replete with opportunities — unlike millions in South Africa who were excluded from politics and advancement simply because they were the wrong race. 

Alex Salmond’s offensive comparison of Scots voting for independence to the ending of apartheid and blacks being given the vote in South Africa took the nationalists’ campaign to a new low yesterday

It was equally offensive to see Mr Salmond embracing immigrants from Eastern Europe and telling them that their intention to vote ‘Yes’ would be the culmination of their own long walk to freedom.  

They chose to come to Scotland not because independence promises an extra layer of liberty, but because of the hard won, wide-ranging freedoms already available throughout the UK, and bestowed upon the Scots as they are bestowed upon every other Briton.  

Enough, frankly, is enough. We have long tolerated Mr Salmond’s mendacity, and his twisted loathing of the English, largely because many felt he would be the loser of this fight and should be indulged. 

So when he dropped hints that the NHS would be privatised if there wasn’t a ‘Yes’ vote, or made up the rules about Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU as he went along, or exaggerated the wealth from Scottish oil revenues, we felt slightly patronising towards the old rogue, assuring ourselves of his inevitable humiliation in the September 18 vote.  

Now that humiliation appears less certain, and the arrogant dishonesty is so overwhelming, it is time to tell him what some of us really think.  

First, this referendum has been a democratic disgrace from the outset. Not only were innumerable expatriate Scots in the rest of the Kingdom not allowed a vote on the Union that has benefited them all so practically, but the English — who subsidise Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion a year according to the most recent Treasury figures — were not allowed a say either, as if the Union were about Scotland alone.  

The sight of English politicians — and Scottish Unionist ones — bending over backwards to encourage the Scots to stay in the UK is as pitiful as it is outrageous. And it has inevitably proven counter-productive.  

The Scots absurdly misrepresent us as oppressors and leeches who have taken ‘their’ oil money since the 1970s, when the opposite is largely true.  

Scotland has boomed under the Union, Scots have thrived in the land of opportunity that is England, and much of the North Sea’s oil was extracted only because of English investment.  

So why the need for further bribes? Couldn’t a perfectly sober, rational case be made about the massive mutual benefits for both parties — and shouldn’t our politicians, now in a demeaning state of 11th-hour panic, have been making it from the moment the devolved assembly opened in 1999?  

They should — but their failure to do so emboldened grasping SNP politicians to push for independence. It says much for the stupidity and complacency of our political class that none appeared to have seen this coming.  

The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied.

I don’t know whether Scotland will vote to become independent. I’m pretty sure that if it doesn’t the ‘No’ campaign’s victory will be narrow, another plebiscite will be held within five or ten years, and there will be further self-serving mischief, strife and instability until the separatists get their way.  

Instead of telling Mr Salmond where to get off after his grotesque misrepresentation of life under the Union, our politicians have responded with the pathetic stunt of cancelling Prime Minister’s Questions today so they can campaign in Scotland for the Union. 

Worse, we have had the spectacle of Ed Miliband gurning in front of TV cameras and demanding that English town halls fly the Saltire to show their love for Scotland — I trust most English town halls won’t waste ratepayers’ money on a flag they would never normally fly from one decade to the next.  

But I suspect that this supine response to Salmond’s lies will be the final straw for most English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters.  

The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied. 

Hard-pressed English taxpayers today see Scottish families enjoying free tuition in higher education (worth £9,000 a year), widespread exemptions from prescription charges and state-funded care for the elderly, and wonder why they don’t get the same benefits, even though they contribute to Scotland’s.  

We have long tolerated Mr Salmond’s mendacity, and his twisted loathing of the English, largely because many felt he would be the loser of this fight and should be indulged

And only two years ago, the British taxpayer had to bail out two Scottish banks on the verge of collapse.  

The tragedy is that Scotland’s enterprise and energy, underpinned by a ferocious Protestant work ethic and an education system far superior to England’s, enabled the Scots to be hugely successful in British life — another fact that makes a mockery of Mr Salmond’s whingeing victimhood. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . If they really do feel the English are so toxic for them, there is nothing left to say except: clear off, good riddance and tell us where to send the bill for more than 300 years of subsidy. 

 

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENGLAND SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE ENGLISH!

The night before last (25th September), Alex Salmond declared (during his shouting match with Alistair Darling MP) that “The future of Scotland should be in the hands of the people of Scotland.” and “It’s about believing that we can govern ourselves better than anyone else can.” All true nationalists will agree with that.

We say that the future of England should be in the hands of the people of England, and we believe that we can govern ourselves better than anyone else can.

The Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Greens and UKIP contrive to foist non-English candidates on the people of England, which include those who, despite being born and raised in England, do not regard themselves as English, nor do they identify with England and her interests.

We also aver that the people of England must rally together and that the English Democrats provide that rallying point!

Only one result will guarantee that the 2014 Scotland referendum is final.

The English have been silenced and excluded from Scotland’s 2014 Referendum

Regardless of its merits and demerits, only one result will guarantee that the Scotland referendum is final. Does anyone really believe that a ‘No’ result will end attempts to separate Scotland from England?

We are encouraged to believe that success for the ‘Better Together’ Campaign will end discussion of the issue of secession ‘for a generation’ as some commentators have said, but I disagree. Of course the size of the turnout and the difference between the ‘Yes’ vote and that of the ‘No’ will also affect both the nature and extent of post-referendum debate.

It seems certain that the deep feelings in favour of remaining in the UK held by many Scots will require considerable mollification which a triumphant ‘Yes’ majority will be minded to offer. In marked contrast, those fiercely favouring separation from England will be unlikely to be appeased by the additional devolved powers promised by the ‘Better Together’ camp quite simply because they will remain subject to UK authority. Moreover, the ‘Better Together’ side will probably feel more relieved than triumphant and, therefore, not feel as benevolent and generous.

It has to be understood that many of those in the ‘Yes’ camp do not acknowledge the hugely disproportionate part played in British affairs by Scots and they tend to lay the blame for those aspects of ‘British’ government they oppose on the English, the Poll Tax being an obvious and oft-cited example. Who would imagine from the perpetual, albeit intermittent, Caledonian complaining that the Poll Tax was also inflicted upon England (and Wales) and was merely rolled out first in Scotland! How dare the British [ie English] Government!

Thus it will go on . . . those aspects of British Government disliked by Scots will be all the fault of the English, and exploited as such by Scottish nationalists in order to pave the way to another ‘independence’ referendum in the hope (if not expectation) that, like the Irish, Scottish voters will return the right answer given a second opportunity.

Those who are as yet undecided and those inclined to vote ‘No’ would do well to consider whether they want to endure the ‘grumbling appendix’ of Scotland potentially separating with all the uncertainty which will accompany it for yet more years, or agree to the decisive and final surgery of amputation from England. It seems likely that such uncertainty will not be in Scotland’s interests if the only practical way of minimising the delay caused by uncertainty is to treat Scotland as already separate and base strategic planning (whether about the economy or defence) on good old reliable England.

Paradoxically, it seems to me, that the English generally would suffer far less angst about getting the right result from such a referendum because we are not the ‘client state’ and we have far less to lose (although lose we will), the paradox being that we do not have any part to play in this particular selfish, exclusive Scottish referendum, not even to express a collective opinion.

Whether Scotland votes ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, England will not gain, especially with Cameron and his ilk purporting to represent England’s interests . . . we’ve come fourth best in all earlier constitutional machinations!

Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland . . . . . .