EngLeave.eu – watch “Brexit the Movie” to get England out of the European Union !
Do we really know which country we live in ?
The make up of the United Kingdom.
WHAT’S IN A NAME
The name of our country on British passports is “The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland” This refers to the union of England,Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
(Though most of Ireland is now independent)
Most people however say “Britain” or “Great Britain”, usually “Britain” refers to the mainland and Great Britain includes Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and have different institutions of governance.
But some “British” can get confused with these different names and usages.
The Scottish and Welsh if asked “What is your citizenship?” they will almost always answer “British” but when asked “What is your nationality will always answer “Scottish, or Welsh.
In contrast native born English who are asked the same question will confuse the two.
British is a citizenship. English is a nationality.
The English outnumbering the other…
View original post 1,313 more words
I am a member of the Institute of Directors, who conducted a poll of members in the 24 hours after the result of the Independence Referendum in Scotland. Please see below for the results:
FEEDING BACK: Scottish referendum on independence survey
856 Policy Voice members took part in the 24-hour snap survey which addressed the topic of the Scottish independence referendum in the immediate aftermath of the No result being announced.
– 70% consider the result of the Scottish Referendum to be positive for business, but a significant majority now want to see greater devolution across the UK, including England.
– 85% agree that Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs should not be able to vote on laws that only affect England.
– 57% believe Westminster was right to offer more powers to Scotland in a bid to secure a No vote, but 60% consider the referendum debate to have damaged relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
This is a clear signal that even the more ‘risk-averse’ sections of the population see a clear need for action to remove the anomalies of devolution within the UK.
The existing parties in Westminster are now split on the issue, which is a positive development, because those who want a real English government can exploit these divisions. ‘English Votes for English Laws’ is little more than an election tactic for the Conservatives, and it will not give the people of England the same rights as the other nations of the UK. Nevertheless the deafening silence of all of Westminster on the unfairness of devolution has been broken. It is a good sign for genuine English patriots.
On the eve of the Scottish Referendum poll I think it an appropriate time to ‘cool down on my rhetoric’ and ponder the consequences of the vote, for us all. I, like a great many people in England, have Scottish in-laws. What often tends to happen is that the issues of loyalty and identity are often left unspoken, so as not to cause friction or upset families. So in that respect the referendum has been of value in forcing us all to confront these issues, rather than leaving them unmentioned, to become a festering sore.
I support the ‘YES’ campaign, because I want England to be a separate and independent nation, with its own parliament and government. If Scotland choses to do likewise then I believe this will help me achieve my aims for England. I am perfectly happy to declare my own selfish reasoning. For too long I feel that my identity, which is as important as any other persons identity, has been buried beneath a sea of ‘British’ rhetoric. I love England, I want to see it prosper and I want everyone that lives here to be able to hold their head high and feel proud to be English!
However what I don’t propose to do is detach England from either Scotland or Wales, and to me this is the main point. Whatever happens on 18th September, England, Scotland and Wales will continue to be part of the island of Britain.
Our fellowship on this island means that we need to co-operate for the benefit of all. We have an interest in protecting our coastline from unwanted invasion, and we must work to ensure that the water we drink and the air we breathe remain clean and fresh. There are other matters of mutual benefit, but these examples seem important enough.
Agreements on these issues above and the countless others not enunciated can be achieved in an open and honest way by a free discussion amongst independent states. Why do we need a British Government to do these things? I don’t believe that we do. My view is that the things we care about should be discussed in the open, so that each side understands the deal they will be getting and that of their contemporaries. The problem that our dis-United Kingdom has is that for too long the British political establishment have sorted out matters, usually in secret. In the end no one really understands who is getting what and for how much. This eventually leads to suspicions and down-right disbelief in what you’re being told. The Scots have felt like this for a number of years, and now the English are beginning to feel the same.
The real losers from a ‘YES’ vote are not the people of Scotland or England, but the rotten political parties that support the existing British state. It has been in their interests for at least the last 70 years, that the people keep out of politics and leave it all to them. After all they know best don’t they! The panic shown by the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties over the last week or so, has little to do with a love of Britain and everything to do with a desire to keep this ‘game’ going. Cameron and Miliband might try to convince us of their love for Britain, but what they really love is the privileges and power that come with the ‘con’ that is Westminster politics.
The British political establishment and its media attack dogs have portrayed this referendum differently as it suited their needs. First they said it was purely a matter for Scotland, and nothing to do with England. Recently they have changed their tune and are portraying it as some kind of armageddon, whereby the Scots and the English will be erecting a 10′ wall between them. In truth both of these positions are nonsense, because in actual fact the Scots and the English will be just like neighbours everywhere. Sometimes we will get on and have each other round for tea, and at other times we will be arguing about matters and falling out. Ultimately though we will be like most good neighbours everywhere, we will just have to rub along or make each others lives a living hell.
Our geography binds us together and our history pulls us apart.
We all need to grasp the opportunity afforded us by the Scottish Referendum to re-think our politics. The people of England especially need the same kind of debate as the Scots have just had. We need to understand our country – ENGLAND, and what we want for it.
Let us face the future with a new, bold spirit. With independence we are not losing our neighbours but merely conversing with them from a different perspective. I hope the people of Scotland make that bold decision and vote ‘YES’. By that act they will do us all a great favour and embolden the process to finally rid us of the British political class. We should remember well that it is these people who have led us to our current predicament, where we hardly recognise England, even as it was only 25 years ago.
FORTUNE favours the BRAVE!
Will it be SCOTLAND the BRAVE?
The people of England must beware, the British establishment are willing to offer Scotland anything to stay in the union, but who do you think will be paying for it – English taxpayers. Even the pro-union Better Together campaign have admitted that for the last 23 years at least, Scotland has spent more than it has made.
Now we have the disgusting spectacle of Labour’s Leader – Ed Miliband calling on people in England to fly the Scottish flag. The whole reason why this referendum has been called is that the Scots think England dominates them, and some Scots clearly hate England. So if it isn’t bad enough that the whole referendum debate has been about Scotland’s future, with no mention of England’s future, we are now supposed to show Scotland how much we want them. Why? Clearly large numbers of Scots don’t want England.
Labour’s leader is an MP elected in England (Doncaster), yet he never mentions England, and now he is cravenly ‘kissing the Scottish rump’. The referendum is Scotland’s chance to see whether it wants to divorce England, but according to all the unionist parties – Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem the rest of the UK will carry on regardless. If that is so then why should we bother. The leading parties in Westminster have been telling us for months that this is nothing to do with England, it’s Scotland’s decision. Now all of a sudden we English have to intervene and tell the Scots how much we love them. This is just insulting as many Scots have spent the campaign saying what a raw deal that get from England.
The English need a party which fights for them, and not those parties that cravenly talk of Britain. If the English don’t stand-up for themselves then the unionist parties will give the Scots anything they desire and English tax-payers, and their children and grandchildren will be footing the bill.
Come on ENGLAND – ditch the unionist parties, support the people that love ENGLAND!
I have just watched the Scottish Independence Debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond, shown on Bank Holiday Monday this week. Amongst all the rhetoric there was one fact that struck me, and it was given by Darling, that Scotland as a nation, has spent more than it makes for every one of the last 23 years. In other words for every one of the last 23 years, England has subsidised Scotland! There can be no other explanation for this fact because we know it would be ludicrous to suggest that Wales and Northern Ireland were capable of doing this, they are even smaller than Scotland. In Northern Ireland’s case they are more subsidised by England than even Scotland.
This ‘little gem’ of information was not disputed by Salmond and so therefore seems reasonably believable. Yet the bitter truth behind this is that England has been pouring money into Scotland for at least a quarter of a century. In actual fact this has probably been going on for much longer than that and the reason Darling picked 23 years duration is that there are no records beyond that point. To support this view a few months ago I did an article which picked-up on recently released cabinet papers from 1983:
These papers showed that in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s Scotland was being heavily subsidised by the UK government, with the particular intent to keep Scottish Independence at bay! All very interesting you might say, but what does this actually mean?
In my mind it means that for at least 35 years, since the first referendum in 1979 on a Scottish Parliament, that all the main political parties have cooperated to keep Scotland’s voters ‘sweet’ on the Union. However if we go back to the 23 years which does not seem to be in dispute, there was a Labour Government in power for 13 of those 23 years. Therefore Scots, like Darling and Gordon Brown, both Chancellor’s of the UK Exchequer, were major players in a UK government committed to subsidising Scotland for their own political ends. That is the central point after all, the reason that successive Conservative and Labour governments have subsidised Scotland is to keep Westminster intact, for without the UK Government these parties and the easy careers that go with it, are doomed.
It is an act of breath-taking arrogance on the part of Darling, to so brazenly proclaim to Scots that England subsidises them and that this is the reason they should stay in the union. Darling was Chancellor of the UK Exchequer when Gordon Brown was the UK Prime Minister. These 2 Scots presided over the greatest financial crisis in the UK for at least 80 years, and they spent vast quantities of English taxpayers money bailing out failed Scottish banks. They ignored the obvious signs of credit over-extension after the Northern Rock collapse and so lead the UK ‘blind’ into the banking ‘run’ in 2008. Just to add insult to injury Darling and Brown both signed-up to the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989, which committed each signatory to put the interests of Scotland first, above all else!
My conclusion is that the debate on Scottish Independence has been enormously beneficial for these reasons:
- Helped many Scots understand the nature of nationhood and what it means to govern and finance oneself
- Helped some English people realise what they are missing, that perhaps England needs a similar debate
- Pulled-down the facade of the United Kingdom showing what very unfair treatment each nation receives
- Revealed the utter deceit of the idea of Britain as a nation, the Scots readily refer to themselves as a nation so where does that leave the English, surely we are a nation too!
I sincerely hope that whatever the result of the Scottish Referendum, the English are given a similar opportunity to debate their sense of nation.
England is a country, Scotland is a country, Wales is a country; the UK is just a state, a political and bureaucratic entity. The UK organises and exploits the English but it is not their nation. We are not British, we are English!
As I was asked the question in Kings Heath I suggested that Birmingham had as much right as London to be the place where an English Parliament would be located. So much of our national life seems to take place in London, that it reduces the rest of England to an afterthought. This is a great shame as most of the real gems of England are outside of the capital. However when pressed on the matter I said that I favoured Lichfield. I had given this some thought beforehand and felt that I wanted somewhere which really captured the provincial spirit of the true England. Where better from that perspective than Lichfield.
Lichfield cathedral is a gothic masterpiece, but is somewhat sullied by decades of industrial pollution. If ever there was a better reflection of the journey this country has been through for 11 centuries, I would be hard pushed to tell. The city has a rich tradition going back to the founding fathers of England – the Anglo-Saxons, in particular to one of the heptarchies – MERCIA.
To reconnect the people of England with their glorious past will be important in building a future English state. The people of England have been forced to bury their identity in the last century for the sake of British unity. Now that our relationship with the Scots has reached an all-time low, why should we bother.
We all need to remember what a long, proud history England has, as this I hope can spur us on to emulate that in our future. I believe in a independent English nation with its own parliament and government, both of which must lie outside London.