I was hoping to be able to stay off this subject, but earlier I received word from Matthew Sinclair that somebody has been impersonating me in the comments on his website. Since these comments were posted following up comments from somebody signing themselves `English Democrat', I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the pond life who make up that mob have been putting words into my mouth.
This is actually so pathetic that I am not even angry about it. (Well, a little bit.) Matthew has kindly edited the comments on his site to make clear that they are not mine. I note merely that, while a political party cannot sue me for defamation, the converse is not true. Certainly, it's likely that I have better things to do with my time than start a libel action against a pissant mob -- but don't rely on it.
For information, the comments are here and here. As usual, the English Democrats show themselves to be barely literate; this time round they were a little more sparing with the Capital Letters, though they were a bit more enthusiastic with line breaks:
I have checked them out - I'll be voting for the English Democrats
even if it is just to make St George's Day a Public Holiday
and of course to prevent Labour splitting up England into 9 Regions.
As it happens, I agree entirely that St. George's Day should be a public holiday. In Turkey. Where he was from. If we're going to have a new public holiday here, I think we should have one which celebrates Britain's great contributions to the peace, prosperity and freedom of Europe. I recommend Trafalgar Day (21st October) or D-Day (6th June, as anybody who has seen the news in the past month or so will remember).
In the other comment, `I' wondered whether,
the English Democrats will also get some `fall-out' from all this UKIP interest.
Sadly I think it's unlikely that they'll be subject to fall-out or any of the other effects of nuclear weapons. Well, we can hope, I suppose.
(Update: Pete wrote to the English Democrats to ask where they stood on free speech. Their response was not very convincing.)
Comments
Posted by Anthony, Tuesday, 8 June 2004 14:50 (link):
"As for "barraty" - a good word - which I had to look up, as I suspect you did! Naturally if you make untrue accusations against us individually or collectively we shall "consider our legal options"."
Twits! Barraty isn't a good word, it's a non-existant word. Pete accused them of barratry. Sadly Pete is technically wrong - the offence of barratry requires proof of three commissions of the act, and thus far the English Democrats have only baselessly threatened to sue you twice...although I'm sure theres time. Hopefully "considering their legal options" would consist of thinking "Damn! We are a political party and cannot sue for defamation. Oh well, perhaps we should stop our barratrous behaviour."
Pete should write back saying that "The English courts are currently of the opinion that the importance of free speech outweighs the right to sue for defamation when it comes to political parties standing for election, and as such have ruled that policial parties have no right to sue for defamation. Do the English Democrats agree with this ruling, or do they value free speech less then the British legal system currently does?"
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Tuesday, 8 June 2004 14:58 (link):
Ah, interesting. I did in fact receive a second threat from Steven Uncles, on the 31st May, though I didn't bother to post it as it was basically the same as the first one; Mr. Uncles wrote,
Now, I don't know the law well enough to know whether this is a separate threat, or merely a reprise of the first one. Still, judging by their accounts, the English Democrats don't themselves have `deep pockets to pay out for compensation', so a lawsuit may not be rewarding....
(Actually I suspect that I'd have had to have received three writs -- `claim forms', now, I suppose -- rather than three threats, to have a case against them?)
Posted by Anthony, Tuesday, 8 June 2004 15:31 (link):
Alas, the criminal offence of barratry was abolished in 1967.
Posted by Pete Stevens, Tuesday, 8 June 2004 15:10 (link):
I did notice that they were not only unable to spell the word barratry, but also their own party name, which is somewhat more damning.
Posted by Backword Dave, Wednesday, 9 June 2004 09:57 (link):
Surely after all this correspondence with the English Democrats, it's now possible to draw a graph of some kind?
Posted by T Payne, Thursday, 17 June 2004 23:58 (link):
I think it is right that free speech should outweigh libel, etc, in political campaigns. The English Democrats, if they are threatening court action because of lies, are wrong to do so. They should ignore it and move on. Having said that, I must say that I support their cause.
Posted by T Payne, Sunday, 24 October 2004 00:46 (link):
Since my own short posting a few months ago, two articles have appeared supportive of the English Democrats, and both have been promptly removed. Is there any reason for this?
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Sunday, 24 October 2004 00:48 (link):
Yep. Infringement of copyright, and of the comments policy. I haven't the slightest idea why Steven Uncles thinks that copying other people's articles out and posting them on my website is an appropriate thing to do, but let me now make it clear that it is not.
Posted by T Payne, Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:55 (link):
Thanks for your prompt reply. I thought it was to do with copyright infringement. I was a bit worried that there might be some political motive. Lucky I saved the articles in time, though I won't be posting them around.
Regards
Posted by Anthony, Monday, 25 October 2004 09:16 (link):
He seems to feel the same need to post unrelated articles in my comments section. Mentioning him once doesn't not make our websites the Steven Uncles bulletin board for the rest of all time. Deleted.
Posted by T Payne, Monday, 25 October 2004 22:31 (link):
By all means.
Posted by T Payne, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 09:48 (link):
Gerald Lambourne's parting comment in his article (posted here by Steven Uncles and quite rightly removed for copyright infringement) is that at least the British Government would not use troops against the people of England in order to prevent them from gaining their own parliament. It is reassuring to know that the British establishment would never do such a thing against its biggest and most lucative colony; until, that is, you think it through and ask why they would never do it. Perhaps it is because, and only because, they do not need to do it.
The people of England are either asleep (my preferred choice based upon sentiment and good manners), lazy, indifferent, self-seeking or downright stupid. That may seem harsh coming from a genuine patriot, but let's be frank, what other nation would spend centuries struggling and suffering for workable democratic and social institutions as we have done, then quietly let them slip away without a murmur of dissent?
The English, of course, are not stupid; they are simply too comfortable in their gilded cages, and conveniently deluded into thinking they are British. The Scots and Welsh, however, are not so enamoured of the British Union, and who can blame them? It is merely a convenience as they are sensibly get on with developing their own national identities, new democratic institutions, more money per head of population, better healthcare and free higher education. The problem is that 80% of their little renaissance is paid for by, yet restricted or denied to, the people of England under the Barnet Formula that even Lord Barnet himself now considers to be unfair.
The English should know better by now. They have the facts one way or another, and they have seen for themselves the imbalance in the constitutional arrangements since 1999. Yet they do nothing. Who needs an army to keep down a nation like that? And by what natural right should a nation like that exist at all? Human groups, like living things, are as much subject to the overriding law of nature as anything else: struggle or die.
So struggle! Rise up, England, and put the kettle on!
Posted by Aelf, Saturday, 30 October 2004 08:07 (link):
YOU'RE NOT KEEPING US DOWN! What you think it's gonna stay exactly as it is now forever? Ha! ha! Think again!
Posted by T Payne, Saturday, 30 October 2004 11:17 (link):
I'm sorry, I was distracted for a moment. What did you say?
Posted by T Payne, Thursday, 4 November 2004 09:46 (link):
Oh, I see! Yes, well, Aelf (what an unusual name. Are you one of those Anglo-Saxon chappies?) I did think again as you suggested, and, although I can assure you that I tried to correct my view, I came to the same conclusion as before.
You're right that things never stay the same; change is all around us and it is the only constant in the universe; constant change keeps everything constant. The British establishment must change things in order to keep the Union intact, even if there is no further logical reason for doing so (other than maintaining their own power, of course). The Union was created for the benefit of an unelected minority and is now maintained by another minority whose representatives are elected by universal suffrage.
In other words, the English not only subsidise the rest of the UK, but we also elect the people who make sure that we continue to do so. A more extreme (but no less absurd) example would be if the Iraqi people overwhelmingly supported the occupation and plundering of their country as well as the slow deaths of their children by starvation and radiation poisoning. No matter what we think about the occupation of Iraq, we naturally expect people there to resist. The most the English would ever do in the same situation (after they had put the kettle on, of course) is press for the appointment of an overworked and underpaid occupation ombudsman to handle complaints. No doubt, too, under our present regime, such an official would be one of the Prime Minister's, or deputy Prime Minister's, own countrymen.
Your comment gives the impression that the English are, as Shakespeare might have put it, champing at the bit, and ready to rise up. Oh that they were! But they are not. I recently saw, in our press, the humiliating view of a Scotsman (Gordon Brown, for whom, by the way, I have the greatest respect when it comes to other matters) and a Welshman (John Prescott, for whom I don't, except for the fact that he rose to the top from his working class roots) waddling around the North East trying to persuade our brothers and sisters there to begin the process of burying our country by supporting regionalisation. We'll see whether they accept or reject such a move. At best expect indifference, but don't wait for a revolution!
We will see change, Aelf, but it will be the small change we get back for subsidising our masters.
Posted by Aelf, Saturday, 4 December 2004 20:57 (link):
"Your comment gives the impression that the English are, as Shakespeare might have put it, champing at the bit, and ready to rise up. Oh that they were! But they are not."
We dont have to burn down our own country to get our own way, it's called being civilised or English to you! We are getting our own way. New labour, i.e. people like you would refuse to even talk about immigration a few years back, now you can't do that and that is thanks to us English telling you that we arent going to allow it. It isnt because of new labwar suddenly deciding to talk, not it's because of us forcing you to discuss the immigration issue. Whether you like it or not more and more English people are realising that they have been taken for a ride and they dont like it and are doing something about it. Like I said, there is more than one way to skin a cat! For your information, I know plenty of English people who are chomping at the bit. You just stay in your ivory tower! England will have it's own unique English parliament back, it's inevitable! Actually you assorted jocks, welsh republican paddies, feminists, pakis, commies, gays, jews, etc, etc cannot stop us from achieving what we want and really, you're helping us as we are learning by YOUR mistakes. Thanks! Yes I am Anglo Saxon that's right, English and Anglo Saxon is interchangable of course!
Posted by T Payne, Sunday, 5 December 2004 01:00 (link):
Make up your mind, Aelf. Am I a commie, Jew, Welsh, Scot, or what? You seem to have called me all of these and God knows what else besides. I suppose there is someone out there who is all of those things and I would be quite proud if I was one of them. Whether you like it or not, we English are probably a greater mix of races and cultures and the other British nations, and we have been for over a millennia. But I'll put you out of your psychological misery and tell you what I am. I am an Englishman and a true patriot. I am also living in exile, a long way from the land of my birth - England - the land that shaped me and from where I gained what experiences I have, both good and bad. I cannot live in England, it's that simple. It has lost its soul and is content to live in a gilded cage. Besides, who wants to live in a nation where the average rent for a modest flat is almost the same as the average monthly salary? The English have turned against themselves, and this explains the excess of racism, a good example of which was your posting.
Don't ever compare me to New Labour. I was old Labour when it concerned itself with working people - my people - before it became a Trojan horse for the so-called Celtic fringe. Now I support the English Democrats as well as the Scottish Nationalists (Plaed Cymru favour English regionalisation as far as I know, so I'm wary of them). I do not support those 'English' parties who advocate racist agendas that will alienate the many ethnic minorities who have lived in England for generations, even centuries in some cases. I only get angry with certain ethnic groups when they preach against ordinary white English people who are not responsible for the past sins of the British (NOT English) Empire. Other than that, if they leave us alone (even if they choose not to integrate), then we should do likewise. People like you complain when other cultures try to impose their ways on us, but you seem not to be averse to imposing our culture on them, even in their own countries of origin - Iraq, for example?
If you are, as you say, an Anglo-Saxon, then you need to go back to the forests of Northern Germany or the plains of Holland and Denmark where you came from! Perhaps the Celts should return to Central Europe where they originally came from, too. Or maybe we should all re-settle in Northern India, the ancestral home of the Indo-European race, to which most of us belong. That seems to be the logical conclusion to arguments like yours. There's more to being English than your narrow and self-defeating perception of it, as any Black footballer who plays for England will tell you!
Posted by Aelf, Saturday, 4 December 2004 21:01 (link):
So what if prescott and rhodri morgan hain blair and all the other scum were swanning around the north east of england? so what? It just shows them up for what they are. If they had half a brain between the lot of them they would never have come out of hiding and shown the whole country the contempt they have for the English and as you know the English are who get new labwar into power ha! ha! Hell, they are such idiots!
Posted by T Payne, Monday, 6 December 2004 22:31 (link):
Have you been drinking?
Are you referring to the English as idiots or just the political personages you mention in your posting? As you know, the people in the North East voted against a regional assembly, although I doubt if they did so because they have all become English patriots. This defeat at the polls could make the pro-regionalists more dangerous rather than less. They will, as you suggest, come out of their shells, but by then it will be too late. I don't think that you or many other English people realise just how determined the Government is to destroy England's identity while milking its wealth. The only disadvantage for them, of course, will be that they will no longer have a scapegoat. Nevertheless, they are very determined and they will not give up.
Next year there's going to be a general election. You will see how determined the English are to save their country, not to mention how really angry they are about the illegal war in Iraq. New Labour will win hands down (though perhaps with a slightly reduced majority). After that New Labour will get even worse towards England. We will be squeezed and increasingly forced to subsidise privileges in the other British nations. This is already happening with regard to prescription charges, hospitals and higher education. Don't you think it's a little more realistic to dwell upon those issues instead of pure races and ruling the waves, etc?
And what will the English do about all this? Nothing. Haven't you noticed (no, you probably haven't because you're too busy looking at the wrong issues - red herrings)...Haven't you noticed that now all tax receipts go to an office in Glasgow? Do you believe that to be an accident? Is it merely a coincidence that virtually all the key people in parliament are Scots or Welsh: ministers, speakers, leaders of both houses, and so on. Or are you too busy fretting about what you wrongly perceive to be the dangers of innocent ethnic minorities who can't help the fact that they are born in the UK, meaning that they have as much right to be there as you or I. You really are the best friend the enemies of England could possibly want. I can actually hear them laughing at the fact that the English are either indifferent to their own fate, gullible beyond imagination, or, like yourself, too extremist to offer any sensible alternatives.
If you have any grasp of what's going on here, then you will know to whom you are really referring when you use the term 'idiots'. OK, so the alternative of the tories is not such a glowing prospect at the moment, and, where England is concerned, the Liberal Democrats would be far worse than even New Labour. But something must be done because it is very painful to lose respect for one's own people, even, in my case, from a safe distance.
As people like to say here where I live,
Caio!!!
Posted by B Blayney, Wednesday, 6 April 2005 20:21 (link):
I seem to find myself in agreement with most of the writer's comments. I would not not wish to be associated with the dishonestly labelled New Labour. I am of working class parentage but have never been inclined toward Labour. However, I have to say that Old Labour were at least honourable, in that they had principles. New Labour are in my opinion political prostitutes, in that they will sell their bodies and souls to achieve and retain power. They are nothing but Tories with red ties. The only reason that the tories cannot regain power is that New Labour have adopted Conservative policies, leaving the Tories with no ground to stand on.
However, I would have more respect for Mr Payne if he were to return to the country of his birth and fight to put right the wrongs that are inflicted upon it by the present, and likely future, governments.
I do feel that ALL three major political parties will continue to drive England further into the cesspit, and that a TOTAL, COMPLETE change of government is the only answer. I live in hope but I don not hold my breath.
Regards
Posted by T Payne, Friday, 8 April 2005 16:00 (link):
You comment that I should return to England and right wrongs, yet later you say that you won't hold your breath for something to change in England. Therein lies part of the reason why I will never return, except for brief visits (though I have no plans in that regard either).
But there are other factors, too. My wife, for family reasons, cannot live in England. Moreover, I cannot return to a country where, if I had not left, I'd be weighted with a mortgage debt well into my seventies, forcing me to do jobs and put up with people I would normally avoid; where I could hardly walk on the streets for fear of intimidation and, at worst, attack from hooligans; where I was surrounded by prejudice (racial or otherwise), backstabbing and indifference; where, even though my earnings were always low, I was still fleeced by the Inland Revenue in penalties simply because I overlooked something minor in a system that is already too complicated, and where everything I gained, be it a university education or even something as simple as confidence and self-respect, had to be prized out of my society in the face of severe opposition from virtually every angle except, thank God, for the universities themselves.
Believe me, I love England, but the fact that I hardly have any reason to do so is a measure of how strong my patriotism is. If I had stayed, I believe that I would barely be alive today. After almost fifty years of misery and indifference (some of it, admittedly, my own fault, but much of it not so) I'll need much more than what you suggest to bring me back home.
England is in my heart and on my computer. Best to leave it there where it can't do any harm.
Posted by wonkotsane, Monday, 2 May 2005 08:19 (link):
You're not alone in having threats of legal action from the EDP or being on the receiving end of grief from them. However, I think there may be a change at the top - the CEP (http://www.thecep.org.uk) got an apology from them the other day.
Posted by Stephen Gash, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 00:28 (link):
I would like to know what exactly it is you have against the English Democrats Party?
I joined the party to combat everything New Labour is doing, not least, the eradication of my country England, for no good reason.
I would have thought the 'liberal elite' would have been more concerned with what New labour is doing to democracy in England, not least with the 'Enabling Act' which effectively removes parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.
Also, I would have thought your self-righteousness indignation would be better directed at New Labour's forced mergers of local councils into unwanted unitary authorities to further restrict democracy and render policy making even more remote from the electorate.
I would have thought that you would be concerned about the ridiculous immigration policies where 70% of immigrants of all descriptions settle in the south east of England where it is highly likely we won't be able to provide them with a drink of water this summer, let alone a dentist.
All the English Democrats Party seeks is fairness. UK citizens should be treated fairly wherever they live which patently they are not at the moment.
Regarding free speech I personally believe that people should be able to say what they damned well please. I had no problems with muslim protestors brandishing placards calling for non-muslims to be beheaded. At least we now know who our enemies are. What compelled me to complain to Sir Iain Blair was the fact that they were not arrested on the spot according to English law, when everybody knows if any non-muslim had called for the murder of muslims, they would have been arrested immediately. I don't actually believe that placards should be an arrestable offence, by the way, it is just the differential application of existing law I find intolerable.
Many on this talk-board may describe themselves as being liberal. I am deeply suspicious of self-styled liberals because in my experience they only liberally ban things other people do, that they disagree with. "I disagree with what you say so I will render what you say illegal in the interest of the public good". That is now the new Blairite mantra covering free speech, so much for 'dying for the right'.
The tired old branding of parties as being left or right wing should really be consigned to the dustbin. It merely brands the observer/accuser as being narrow mindedly intolerant.
The rise in English nationalism is commensurate with the removal of democracy from England. England is the only country in the EU without its own parliament. It is the only country that is required to cease existing for the sake of the UK and EU alike.
Not exact quotes, but near enough Robin Cook: "England isn't a nation, it is just a collection of regions" Charles Kennedy: "Regionalisation is bringing into question the very existence of England itself" John Prescott: "Constitutionally, the English do not exist"
What people would lie down and accept this? Particularly from those who pretend to be fellow and equal citizens while in practice impose unfair laws upon England which are rejected by devolved executives.
Rather than bandy around insults towards the English Democrats Party, open your own closed minds.
Posted by T Payne, Sunday, 7 May 2006 22:41 (link):
To Stephen Gash.
You ask what people would lie down and accept the kind of things that are happening to England. The answer is simple - the people of England would, and do.
I agree with the aims of the English Democrats because I'm becoming surer that they are not hiding any covert racist views. But, although they are increasing their support to a small degree, I don't see many people in England reacting very vocally against this obvious violation of England's national rights. There are times when I wish we were more like the French!
The English are simply sitting back and accepting all this. I don't see them changing in the near future, if at all, and I only thank God that, as an exile, I no longer have to see the death of my nation at first hand. It hurts a lot, but what can I do? Absolutely nothing because few people in England are, or will ever be, prepared to wake up and listen. Instead, in some areas, they are voting for fascists like the BNP, further replenishing New World Order Labour's stock of ammunition against us.
Nations, just like people, get what they deserve in the end, and we can't entirely blame New World Order Labour for our own failings; they've simply exploited what was already there. Despite the pervading, and not always subtle, anti-English propaganda, the facts are already clear enough for any average English person (whatever their race or religion) to see without being told by us. If they continue to ignore it, then there's precious little, I'm afraid, that anyone else can do.
Posted by T Payne, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 00:21 (link):
I am about to join the ranks of those who are less than impressed with the English Democrats.
I had been invited to join the EDP and, in fact, I was about to do so, when I read that they were standing in local elections in the Welsh county of Monmouthshire on the basis that people there should decide if it should be English or Welsh. Perhaps there are good, or at least plausible, arguments on both sides of this relatively irrelevant issue, but I was, and still am, convinced that it will seriously undermine the EDP's slowly growing credibility in the light of more serious economic and social discrimination against the English within England itself. Not the least of this is the strong possibility that only the English and not the Scots or Welsh will be required to carry biometric ID cards. Together with discrimination in healthcare, higher education and other areas, there is a real possibility that we can now call England Britain's biggest colony, so who gives a toss whether Monmouthshire's 800 or so square miles is part of England or Wales. I don't even regard Cornwall or Berwick-Upon-Tweed as English!
When I explained my concerns to the senior member who had invited me to join, more politely, I should add, than I am doing here, his response was short, dismissive and, may I say, somewhat childish ('we WILL be standing in Monmouthshire!', or words to that effect). He stated that there were legitimate reasons to commit what I call irredentism in Wales but he failed to spell them out, even in outline so that I could have done more specific research of my own. I was appalled. In his position, as a member of a party that is still very small and needs as many members as it can get, I would have been less indifferent towards prospective members' legitimate concerns. Clearly this man dislikes debate.
Indifference and arrogance are partly what drove me away from England, and it is this self-same indifference that I continue to meet in abundance whenever I have contact with English people. Our nation, in the end, will get what it deserves. Let's hope that's an English Parliament instead of the kind of oblivion that always awaits hubris.
Posted by T Payne, Thursday, 4 January 2007 17:55 (link):
The English are Paying Dearly for Staying in the Union: and not only with money.
David Clark, a former Downing Street adviser, makes an astonishing claim in his article, Scots and English Would Pay Dearly for Ending the Union – Guardian Online December 27th 2006. He states that the union between Scotland and England is the most ‘enduring and successful in history’.
There were, admittedly, times during Britain’s three centuries of existence as a political union – rare moments, perhaps, when neither England nor Scotland had the upper hand - when he would have been right. So why, if it is still so enduring and successful, are we now even debating – or trying to debate in the face of an indifferent or hostile media - it’s continuation or possible demise? And why the necessity for a Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly, yet nothing for England, if we are still so securely part of the same nation? People are not as stupid as politicians think, even if we English are taking a little longer to wake up from our British slumber which, since 1999, has been more akin a coma. Increasing numbers of us throughout the British Isles can’t be blamed for feeling that we are no longer one nation sharing the same basic rights and responsibilities. And the reasons for this development cannot be dismissed as casually as Mr. Clark seems to do. In fact, his argument holds less water when one looks at how the union came about, and then, more importantly, what it has become today.
First of all, there was no common consent for union; no referenda took place in 1284, 1535-42, 1707 or 1801 in order to ratify any part of it. Granted, in those days there was little of the kind of democracy that, theoretically at least, we have now. It was carried out by powerful olligarchies in all of the British nations, and not only in England. A similar fait accompli may yet await us with regard to the European Union, either directly or, more likely, in the guise of something else.
The groundwork for the completion of British unity was already in place by the seventeenth century when England was governed by the Scottish Stuarts, and in the century prior to that when the Welsh-descended Tudor rulers of England signed the Law in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542. The 1284 Statute of Rhuddlan that initially bound Wales to England doesn’t really count because at that time England and Wales, as well as William Wallace’s Scotland and parts of Ireland, were all under the alien control of French-speaking Norman monarchs such as Edward the First, John Balliol and Robert the Bruce. So entirely blaming the ‘wicked’ English for any of these acts smacks of cheap political scapegoating. Moreover, the absolutism and intransigence of the Scottish Stuarts caused a bloody civil war that led to regicide and an eleven year republican autocracy over all of Britain and Ireland – not something we ever want to see again.
By the end of the seventeenth century the Scots, always with an eye on English wealth, had already gone bankrupt after a failed attempt at colonialism in the Americas. The English, on the other hand, needed to finally neutralise the possibility of Scotland and Ireland becoming, as they had often been before, bases for continental European interference in English affairs. The union was, in other words, nothing more than a marriage of convenience. It formed a necessary basis for the later British – not just English - Empire and served its purpose while there were still military threats coming from the European continent.
David Clark’s further analysis that the new desire for separatism in Scotland, and increasingly in England, too, is merely because voters are dissatisfied with New Labour is quite true, but he should not dismiss it so lightly or so cynically as if it were a slight abberation in an otherwise fixed and eternal state of affairs. He offers few concrete suggestions as to how New Labour could genuinely and practically improve matters in order to satisfy the disaffected. I witnessed first hand a similar mix of resentment and intransigence on all sides in Yugoslavia just months before it sank into a terrible civil war. New Labour’s largely Scottish leaders, along with their Welsh and English friends, are displaying much the same kind of blinkered hubris that risks leading us into big trouble – not a war, of course, but nonetheless a serious crisis that, just as it has in the former Yugoslavia, threatens to turn into a mutual and damaging enmity that could take many generations to heal.
And as English disatisfaction now equals that of many Scots, the only way to preserve the union for a little while longer, and to restore its self-respect as it naturally and inevitably depreciates in its current form, is to give the English equal rights to a Parliament – and that can only mean Westminster; to cease foreign aggression; to desist from interfering in peoples’ private lives and personal freedoms and to fundamentally ‘review’ the Barnet Formula. I envisage none of this ever happening under any British Government, now or in the future, and so, like many others, I advocate the restoration of sovereignty for my country. What is wrong with that when the British are so keen to support it elsewhere in the world when it suits them, even where it leads to more instability such as in the aforementioned ex-Yugoslavia or areas of the former USSR?
The comment that David Clark makes about Scotland needing more money because it has a higher level of public spending than, say, Ireland (50% to 34%) ignores the obvious argument that it is how efficiently more than how much one spends on public services, or anything else, that counts. I have yet to hear stories of the Irish starving and homeless on the streets or dying from diseases that are easily curable elsewhere!
Mr. Clark further justifies higher spending in Scotland and Wales on the basis of lower population density and poorer health. I’m not sure what lower population density has to do with anything - Canada, New Zealand and Australia all seem to do well enough by it. And he doesn’t go into why the Scots might have had poorer health in the first place, or whose fault it is. I suspect, perhaps, there is a subtle insinuation here is that the perennially wicked English who are to blame. Even today there are plenty of disturbing examples of abject poverty and ill-health in England that can equal or surpass anything in other parts of the UK.
There is always some trauma during times of change, but, unlike David Clark, I believe that in the end the independent nations of Scotland and Wales would be quite successful despite their size, just as Ireland is now in relation to the past. Much smaller nations – even those no bigger than an average British town - have done very well alone, and some of them are, per capita, richer than many larger ones. David Clark should not fear Scotland’s diminished voice in world affairs. Even with its small population, and in spite of its former poverty, it has still produced, as has Wales, many of the greatest scientists, inventors, doctors, leaders, philosophers, engineers, writers and artists ever known. And this wasn’t entirely due to it being part of Britain because, with only ten percent of England’s population, they actually had, until a century ago, more universities than the English and Welsh combined. England can also thank many individual and enterprising Scots and Welsh for their valued contributions to its national life over the centuries, although even this great tradition now threatens to be soiled by New Labour’s rancourous attitude towards us. Nevertheless, it is a sign of English tolerance that if some Scots, or other Britons, do wish to have a world voice from a bigger platform, they will still be welcome to live, work and even represent constituencies in an independent England as they always have been in the past. That need not change, and they should not think it necessary to control and vilify us in order to do it.
Mr. Clark states that England would remain Scotland’s most important export market, but that new barriers would make trade harder. I do not envisage that separation would make much difference in terms of trade and free movements of people, just as it did not to any great degree after Ireland broke free in the 1920s. Even if England left the EU but Scotland and Wales remained in it, little would need to change regarding borders or controls if the British successor states stayed, as Britain currently does, outside the Shengen area. A common customs arrangement, or at least very close cooperation, could remain in force, and many British institutions and corporations such as the BBC, British Airways or BP, would undoubtedly continue as they are. Why should they not do so? Not even the word ‘British’ need be dropped because geographically that is what we would still be, just as Norwegians, Danes and Swedes are all Scandinavians and share certain institutions.
As for currency exchanges that Mr. Clark thinks would restrict trade, I assume that all the British nations might retain, for the time being at least, the pound sterling, issued by their respective central banks and with their own denominations and designs. Many former British colonies and dominions remained in the Sterling area for a long time after independence, and by the time they left it made little difference to Britain, anyway. Of course, once some British nations joined the Euro and Shengen and others did not, there would need to be some restrictions, but nothing that would seriously affect the movement of goods and people, just as I’m sure it doesn’t now between, say, Sweden, which is in the EU, and Norway which is not.
Unless there are fundamental reforms in Europe, I envisage England opting for, as the French philosopher and former government minister, Maurice Druon, recently suggested, a kind of associate connection with the EU (and with EFTA and NAFTA for that matter) which would enable us to trade freely with it without having to put up with its bureaucracy; numerous and pointless restrictions and the absurd scams that sometimes come out of Brussels. After independence, the only real barrier would be that the Scots and Welsh of New Labour would no longer be able to use England as a politically neutered milk cow.
David Clark also warns of an independent England’s diminished standing in the world. But Britain’s international influence has been receding anyway since World War Two, and it has plumetted since the 2003 Iraq invasion. The UK does little or nothing that either the US or the EU – and sometimes both at the same time - want it to do. Tony Blair’s dream of Britain being a bridge between North America and Europe is an honourable one that I agree with in principle, except that it is a bridge almost entirely owned by the banks between which it spans. And because, like it or not, devolution has shown that the Scots and Welsh have now developed significantly different world views and ideas of governance from the English, I believe that only an independent England can create this bridge without losing any more sovereignty, and by having the courage to distance itself from the least attractive policies of both power blocs without seriously offending either. David Clark reveals New Labour’s surreptitious imperialistic mindset by making such comments. He fails to understand the true nature of national strength and identity, and the fact that we English simply want to live in a free, prosperous and peaceful England that minds its own business, however big or small it turns out to be.
England’s power and influence in the world would diminish far less than it would for the other British nations. In fact, with its own government; with less of our money going to other parts of the UK, and with a less intrusive foreign policy that has already alienated half of the world, England’s wealth and international standing could actually increase! New Labour knows, too, that because of the damage it has already done to us, they might never again play a major part in the political life of a free and independent England. That, I suspect, is what is really behind Mr. Clark’s thinking, and like him, in the interests of having a genuine democracy with parties that truly advocate different policies, that is something I would also not wish to happen. But an English Labour Party, while it would not return to its old cloth cap image, must never be like its British predecessor.
New Labour knows, too, that whereas Scottish or Welsh independence would probably cause no more than a mild ripple across Europe, a free England that was true to its inherently libertarian and free-thinking nature (whichever party was in power) might just manage, simply by being itself and without the need for foreign meddling or intrigue, to create a political tsunami that just could significantly change the world - for the better. No self-respecting Anglophobe (now there’s an oxymoron!) could ever allow that to happen.
And we would not be the only rich nation that is dependent upon energy imports that are, in any case, declining worldwide, not least in the North Sea. This would merely force England to cooperate with other developed nations in pioneering, as quickly as possible, alternative, cleaner and cheaper energy resources. As for Trident, what makes Mr. Clark think we would want it anyway? At whom are we pointing these expensive missiles that we pay for but the USA virtually controls? The English Army, moreover, would only become even more overstretched, as Mr. Clark warns, if the English foolishly inherited the British penchance for imperial foreign adventures. English servicemen and women only belong on English soil; on English ships; in English skies; on other NATO members’ territory temporarily and for training purposes only, and nowhere else outside of a UN role within international law.
David Clark also turns his criticisms towards the Scottish Nationalists, accusing them of having ‘Braveheart’ fantasies that are almost as bad as the ‘risible’ English claims of being an oppressed majority. But the movie ‘Braveheart’ had the effect of inciting an irrational hatred towards the English among blinkered and politically obtuse people, some of them, astonishingly, English themselves. Even people outside the UK – where I live, for example – seem to believe that the English are violent hooligans who have spent the last few centuries oppressing others. When I challenge them by saying that nothing is ever that simple, they go glazy-eyed, as if hypnotised, and always cite ‘Braveheart’ in their defense. That is the extent of this movie’s effect.
This hatred towards the English is far less evident among SNP members who he accuses of having been influenced by Mel Gibson’s slanderous and totally inaccurate movie than it is among those self-pitying Scots, as even Mr. Clark rightly calls them, who, ironically, are more likely to support New Labour and the Liberal Democrats in order to cling to English money. It is insulting to suggest that a naïve propaganda film could have such an effect on one of Scotland’s, and Britain’s, most respected political parties.
In fact, as English nationalism grows, so will cooperation and friendship between those Scots, Welsh and English who want to separate politically and, in doing so, unite themselves properly as true friends, genuine equals and good neighbours. There is nothing remotely risible about it as Mr. Clark believes.
We English have long stoically put up with either open or furtive Hollywood propaganda that displays us as effeminate toffs or obsequious and undernourished toadies, and we have so far quietly accepted accusations of being imperialists. This is despite the fact that the ancestors of most English people, including mine, were semi-literate but hardened industrial and agricultural workers who had no time, energy, means or inclination to rush abroad and oppress other nations. When I saw mel Gibson’s other naïve and historically flawed anti-English movie, ‘The Patriot’ I was treated to the spectacle of Scots, Welsh and Irish members of the audience applauding and giving the movie a standing ovation, in an English cinema full of English people. Sometimes there is a thin line between tolerance and stupidity. We must also give quiet witness to politicians and academics freely telling us, without fear of contradiction, that we don’t really exist, except when we’re football hooligans, BNP fascists or other useful scapegoats for British ills. on top of all that, it has not escaped our notice that we are now increasingly discriminated against in terms of healthcare and education. This is the price we must finally pay for our misplaced stoicism. We are, therefore, quite entitled to feel that we are being oppressed and to consider going our own way in the world, as any nation has the moral right to do.
Then Mr. Clark claims that despite the surfeit of Scots at Westminster it is still ‘Middle England’ that holds the power. So who constitutes this ‘Middle England’, anyway? I’ve never met them and I socialised with all kinds during the fifty years I lived in England. I’ve heard of Tolkein’s ‘Middle Earth’. Is it like that? I imagine it is more akin to Oscar Wilde’s ‘Bunbury’ character in The Importance of Being Earnest - a convenient but imaginary devise used to cover an almighty ulterior motive; in this case an abstract silencer to wield against the ordinary people of England when we get out of hand; whipping up enough ‘guilt’ and self-hatred among us in order to ensure that we continue to feed the mouths that bite us! We English might just as well talk about a ‘Middle Scotland’, or a ‘Middle Wales’ and see how they like it! This concept of Middle England’s power is almost as absurd as the conspiracy theory that the world is ruled by reptiles in human form!
And how does this sublime English force called ‘Middle England’ manage to control Britain when even some Tory MPs with ‘Middle-England’ seats, such as the one in which I onced lived (as well as at least two other constitutuencies close to it), turn out to be Scots? Scores of English seats are, in fact, held by Scots, Welsh and Irish-born MPs belonging to all the major parties. Intentional or otherwise - and it never bothered me either way before devolution - this is an infiltration job par excellence. And it doesn’t stop there. Apart from the premiership (now and after the current incumbent steps down) and most senior cabinet positions, this ‘Celtic Raj’ also includes the leadership of all three main parties at Westminster; the current speaker of the Commons (who by convention is not really entitled to hold that office); the Lord Chancellor, as well as his predecessor; numerous junior ministers and Government advisers; various key media people and, with good reason I believe, a significant and disproportionate number of senior figures in administration, advisement, diplomacy and finance. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury – the head of the English church - is Welsh and was, I suspect, chosen by the Government precisely because of that. By rights the Archbishop of York should have been next in line for the highest English ecclessiastical office - namely Dr. John Sentamu, a former Ugandan judge. He is a true Anglophile - and therefore a true Englishman as far as we civic nationalists are concerned - who has publically defended the right of the English people, whatever our religions or races, to be properly recognised as a nation.
For the English – who are in reality far more tolerant and decent than New Labour and the chattering classes of Islington and Edinburgh would have the world believe - none of this concern over growing Scottish or Welsh hegemony in the British Establishment really mattered before 1999. In 1997 I last voted Labour knowing full well that its Government would disproportionately comprise of non-English ministers. I saw them as I then saw myself - simply as British. Like most English people, my sense of Britishness was more deeply engrained than it is among the Scots or Welsh. And it is ironic that, of all the British nations, the one that had embraced the union most fervently is precisely the one that least depends on it.
That is the real heart of New Labour’s, and Mr. Clark’s, fear, because they must surely be aware by now that it is slowly but surely dawning on the English that the longer the British union in its current form continues to be held together on a political life-support machine, the more English patients will suffer, or even die, because only the Scots and Welsh get free access to certain expensive life-saving drugs that we help subsidise; the more English graduates will be tied to years of crippling debt, or not be able to afford a university education at all, while those in Scotland and Wales enjoy debt-free higher education greatly at England’s expense, and the more English pensioners will have to sell most or all of the possessions they would otherwise have passed on to their children in order to afford care, while in Scotland they get it free, considerably paid for with English gold. These, along with genuine Scottish and Welsh grievances, and not simply abstract national pride, are what will finally lay the British experiment to rest.
That is why the choice of words in David Clark’s assessment of the rise in English nationalism clearly gives away the fear that he and New Labour, not to mention the other main parties, really feel: the ‘novel development of the constitutional debate’, ‘self-pity’ and the claim that English nationalism mimics Scottish nationalism. This wrongly suggests that the English are merely copying the nationalist Scots for its own sake. Now why would we do that? Many of us have, as I said, been reluctantly pushed into a nationalist mindset, and because we feel it is too late to get a fair deal out of the devolution project that doesn’t involve the regionalisation of England – meaning our political destruction while leaving the other British nations intact. Moreover, the word ‘novel’ tries to belittle a rising sentiment throughout Britain that threatens the power of New Labour more than it does the well-being of the peoples of the British nations. There are very serious reasons for the rise of English, or any other, nationalism and the British establishment would do well not to ignore or deride them.
David Clark ends his piece as he began it, by saying, quite disingenously, that the case for continued union is strong and that the real issue is political leadership. I sense a criticism of his own party here. He knows very well that the union has been irreparably weakened by the various ramifications of New Labour’s devolution policy and its foreign meddling and he is engaging in damage control – not for the union but for his party. The only way he seems to see the union surviving is by continuing to pander to the smaller British nations at the expense of England, tied down like Gulliver in Lillyput, and by pursuing the subtle propaganda that the English are somehow the main culprits in all that is bad about Britain, rather than the key to its pointless continuation. And if, as he says, we will pay dearly for the end of the union, then what, under the existing circumstances, have we English got to lose that is not already being taken away from us?
All that is really wrong with the British union is that it has run its natural course, just as its worldwide empire had done after the Second World War. And the only decent thing we can do is to let it pass into history with maximum dignity and a minimum of pain.
Post a new comment.
Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.