Category Archives: Saint George

Here is my speech from our St George’s dinner in Barnsley

Here is my speech from our St George’s dinner in Barnsley:-

Ladies & Gentlemen

I would just like to start by offering our thanks to Chris, Joanne, Kevin, Ian and all those who have helped make this a very enjoyable evening.

Ladies & Gentlemen

We are gathered here this evening in a celebration of St George, our English Nation and also at the start of the English Democrats’ EU  and local Election campaign.

On St George’s Day, on the 23rd, UKIP put out a thoroughly deceitful claim stating:-
 
“UKIP is the only political party which has consistently campaigned to mark St George’s Day with a national holiday
Today, and over the past few days, we have seen people across the country mark St George’s Day. Whether it be by organising a procession or a festival, or simply flying a flag, more and more of us are taking the opportunity to celebrate England and Englishness.
The huge increase in awareness of what St George’s Day means, which we have seen gather pace in the past decade, has happened amongst people at a local level and in the face of official indifference, or often hostility, from above. UKIP is the only political party which has consistently campaigned to mark St George’s Day with a national holiday. We look forward to that becoming a reality.
We recognise that a great and benign pride in our history and achievements is something which is felt by people of all generations, despite constant attempts to discourage it and turn our history into a source of shame.
Next year sees the 800th anniversary of one of the greatest moments in that history, the signing of Magna Carta. It will rightly be a time of great celebration for all of us.
In the meantime, happy St George’s Day!?”

Ladies and Gentlemen I remind you that that is from a party whose leader recently said:  “I didn’t read it.  It was drivel.  It was 486 pages of drivel.  It was a nonsense”. 

Curiously the man who said that not only wrote the foreward to UKIP’s manifesto but also repeatedly defended it and quoted it in various radio and television interviews!  So much for “drivel” and “nonsense”!

But in fact and in all truth it is us, the English Democrats, which is really the only party of which this could truthfully have been said.  

Indeed in the run up to this St George’s Day we put out this Press Release:-
 
“CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY
 
The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “St George has been the Patron Saint of England since 1325.  As the emblem Saint of our Nation we English, as a proud and historic Nation, should celebrate with gusto on Wednesday, 23rd.”

Robin continued:- “ Our English flag should be flying high on every flagpole in England upon St George’s Day!”

What do you think of that?

This year however what we have seen is an upsurge of many of England’s enemies making deceptive noises about being pro St George’s Day.  They are doing so not because they are now friendly but with an agenda in mind:  Consider these comments:-
 
“The England football team has helped reclaim the England flag from the far-right, ‘who should never have been allowed to take it in the first place’.  Research for British Future confirms that civic celebrations of Englishness and Britishness have facilitated a more tolerant and open understanding of ethnicity and nation.”

The Director of IPPR, the Labour Think Tank, Guy Lodge warns about politicians and Engishness:- “Think about it. Contest it, but do not let it become something that is ‘not allowed.”
 
The Left call this stratagem:- “Adopt and Adapt”.

A fantastic example of this Adopt and Adapt stratagem was Boris Johnston’s, Mayor of London’s adoption by putting on a St George’s Day event in Trafalgar Square at which I am told that not a single one of the many flags officially on display was a Cross of St George!  Now that really is adaption for you!

Also we had David Cameron saying:- “
 
“I want to send my best wishes to everyone celebrating St George’s Day.
Up and down the country – including here in Downing Street – the flag of St George is flying high and celebrations – from the archaic to the eccentric – are taking place:
In Plymouth – a patriotic festival; in London – a great feast in Trafalgar Square; in Leicester – a medieval re-enactment; and in Worcestershire – an annual ‘asparagus run’, to welcome the new harvest.
St George has been England’s patron saint since 1350. But for too long, his feast day – England’s national day – has been overlooked. Today, though, more and more people are coming together on or around April the 23rd, eager to celebrate everything it is to be English. And there is much to celebrate. Because this is a country whose achievements in industry, in technology, sport, music, literature and the arts – they far outweigh our size.
Our counties and cities are known the world over:
In America, where Newcastle Brown Ale is the most imported ale; in China, where the most popular international football team is from London: Arsenal; in Australia, where they go mad for a Cornish cuisine – the humble pasty; in South Korea, where Yorkshire-set Downton Abbey is a TV favourite. And across the globe, where the best-selling band is from Liverpool: the Beatles.
This St George’s Day, I want us to reflect on one of England’s greatest achievements: its role in the world’s greatest family of nations – the United Kingdom. In just 5 months, the people of Scotland will go to the polls and decide whether they want to remain a part of this global success story. So let’s prove that we can be proud of our individual nations and be committed to our union of nations. Because no matter how great we are alone, we will always be greater together.
So once again, to everyone across England, I’d like to wish you a very happy St George’s Day.”

Compare that with what he said only a few years ago.  David Cameron used to claim to be adamantly against any show of Englishness.  Consider this quotation from an article by a journalist, Mark Stuart.
 
“As an ardent Unionist, I was greatly encouraged by David Cameron’s remarks earlier this year, when he took part in a grilling from Yorkshire Post readers.  When quizzed by Paul Cockcroft, a member of the Royal Society of St George about introducing a new public holiday to celebrate St George’s Day, Cameron rejected the idea, adding: “I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England.  I think we’re stronger having England , Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland united”.

So one of the first things English nationalists need to realise about David Cameron is that he will leave them disappointed.  The Conservatives have no plans to establish an English Parliament.  Nor do they propose solving the so-called West Lothian Question”.

We English Democrats need to bear this in mind when people say to us that the Conservatives might be willing to do something for England .  I think that Conservative Leadership is actually our nation’s worst enemy.

What all this kerfuffle shows however is that we are already being successful with our campaign for St George’s Day to be officially recognised.  By being in the fight we are changing the dynamics of political discource.

The fact is that St George as the patron saint of England is a reflection of the history of our country, but I think he is a good patron saint for England, not least because of his visually striking red cross on a white background, an emblem which for 700 years has adorned our English flags.

In history St George seems to have been a Roman soldier, indeed it has been said that he was of the rank of Legate in the Emperor Diocletian’s Pretorian Guard.   If so, that makes him not only a career soldier, but roughly equivalent in status to the Lieutenant Colonel in Command of the Guards. 

The Roman Empire had been going through a terrible period in the run up to Diocletian’s seizure of power in which Emperors came and went kaleidoscopically in bloody civil war.  The Empire seemed to be tearing itself apart whilst it was also under almost constant attack from the barbarian hordes outside of the Empire.  By this stage the Roman Empire was less heavily populated than the barbarian lands on the other side of the Rhine in what is now Germany.

The General who was to become the Emperor Diocletian had commanded the Roman armies in the Roman province of Britain, a province which then was made up of most of England and Wales but not that part north of Hadrian’s Wall.  The Roman province of Britain was frequently the source of rebellious and ambitious Generals seeking to become Emperor.  The usual pattern would be that he would get the army in Britain to acclaim as Emperor and he would then march on to wherever the then current Emperor was and seek to defeat him in battle.  If he succeeded in doing so, or succeeded in getting the current Emperor murdered, he was then in a good position to have himself accepted as Emperor, at least until the next rebellious General came along. 

Usually the legion that had been most supportive of the new Emperor became his Pretorian Guard and, accordingly, if the story about St George being the Legate of Diocletian’s Pretorian Guard is true,  then St George probably did do a considerable period of time serving in Roman Britain and therefore in what is now England. 

St George appears to have come from what is now either Turkey, Lebanon or Israel.  He would appear to have been a Hellenistic Greek.  Some oddball commentators have talked about his being Turkish, but the Turks did not actually arrive in that part of the world for another 500 years because it appears that St George was martyred in 303. 

As I say it is also the year of St George’s martyrdom and is of course the 23rd April which according to the medieval church calendar is his feast day. 

The story goes that St George had either always been or had became a practising Christian.  Diocletian was the last of the successful pagan emperors and introduced a new system of rule which is known in history as the Dominate in which the Emperors became much more like oriental despots and the last vestiges of the old republic were shed.  Diocletian also sought to support the established pagan religions and issued an edict of persecution against the religion which was increasingly challenging paganism within the Roman Empire, that is Christianity.  It appears that St George sought to personally argue with Diocletian about this.  If he was the Legate of the Pretorian Guard then St George may have thought that Diocletian would listen to him.  In the event it appears that St George was tortured to death. 

Ladies & Gentlemen you should remember that there was nothing cuddly or quaint about the Romans.  In fact the Romans were probably the most accomplished torturers ever and indeed Latin is the language that has the most words of all languages in all of human history for executioner and torturer because they had so many specialisms.   

There is a lurid tale from Roman history of a Carnifex, a maker of meat, who received a standing ovation in that most impressive Roman public building the Amphitheatre for removing every last piece of meat from his still conscious victim over the course of an hour or so. 

St George’s tomb is in what is now Israel in Lydda (Lod) is approximately 25 miles from Jerusalem.  His tomb is in the Christian church and next door is a mosque and the Palestinian Christians and Muslims of Lydda jointly venerate him and maintain his tomb.  In Islamic tradition he is thought to be El Quadir, a white knight. 

The legend of the dragon and the knight is a medieval morality story.   St George who is the classic military saint is here depicted as fighting against Evil and the classic image of the dragon is the emblem of Evil.  The image of Goodness is dramatically represented as the virgin princess whom he saves.   This story has all the elements of such a visual story that it has remained fixed as the myth of St George ever since but it was a moral allegory rather than ever intended to be a description of history.

St George has a long history in England and indeed the original Anglo Saxon Church in Doncaster was dedicated to St George.   So here we are ladies and gentlemen gathered to celebrate a brave soldier and Christian martyr who through history has become an emblem of our English Nation. 

St George became increasingly popular as a saint during the Crusades and its said to have fought for them when the crusaders were attacked outside Antioch and helped to bring the crusaders to the sensational victory of taking back Jerusalem from the Muslims who had then occupied it. 

After this the Genoese adopted St George as their patron saint and as they regularly transported crusaders to the Holy Land, his red cross on its white background became increasing associated with crusading. 

Richard the Lion Heart adopted him and then eventually he was formally adopted as England’s patron saint in 1325 and his feast day as the 23rd April. 

Edward III’s armies in his three famous victories first against the Scots at Halidon Hill and the French at Crecy and Poitiers were emblazoned with the Cross of St George and English armies ever afterwards until the Act of Union in 1707 always carried the Cross of St George which then became incorporated into the new Union Jack. 

You might remember Ladies and Gentlemen, at our Spring Conference in Dartford we displayed the image of an original medieval illustration of the Peasants Revolt 1381 in which both sides, the Royal army and the armed peasants, were displaying the Cross of St George!

Ladies and gentlemen, our Nation has three patron saints, the traditional patron saint of the English monarchy being Edward the Confessor, the last King of the Saxon Royal Family and St Edmund, who was the much earlier King of East Anglia, who was shot to death with arrows by Vikings.  St Edmund is traditionally the patron saint of the English as a Nation, folk, or people.  Some people say that St Edmund should be treated as England’s patron saint, others St Albans and various others like St Cuthbert but I think that somewhat misses the point and is really a diversion from what needs to be done politically in England. 

The issue for any serious English nationalist isn’t which patron saint we support, or what the emblem of England is, but to try and concentrate on what we can do to celebrate our English Nationhood.

Our history has given us St George and his visually striking red cross on a white background as the patron saint and the emblem of England. 

It would appear that he actually has more connection with England and English history than St Andrew, who after all certainly never visited Scotland and one of Jesus’ Galilean Disciples. 

Consider the alternative.  Who here would like our current Masters to decide upon our nation emblem? What would that be?  Globalist?  Multiculturalist?  Suggestions.   Tolerance of all faiths and non.

All in all I think England is fortunate to have St George as our patron saint but there is certainly no reason why other days should not be celebrated, some want to celebrate St Edmund and I would encourage that. 

I would also strongly encourage the celebration of the anniversary of the Union of England into a single united nation state when King Athelstan became King of all England on the 12th July 927.  This should be English Unity day!

So here we are Ladies and Gentlemen at a feast organised by our Yorkshire hosts to celebrate St George and at the start of our EU and local election campaign and so Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the toast:- England! St George! The English Democrats!

 

Scottish Tory Splitter Ends Delusions Of Unity – Will It Mark The Dawn of a Federal UK?

For years, the British Establishment parties in Scotland have operated as minor branches of their larger, UK/Unionist British head offices. Despite Scotland now having a powerful and evermore independent legislature, the Unionist parties have in Scotland remained subordinate to their organisational masters in London, pretending to be different but forever tethered to Westminster. Last May the SNP took effective advantage of this situation, winning an historic majority on the back of a campaign that they are the only truly Scottish party.

Murdo Fraser MSP, the favourite to be the next leader of the Scottish Tories, is attempting to change all that, claiming:

“If I am elected as leader of the party, I will turn it into a new and stronger party for Scotland. A new party. A winning party with new supporters from all walks of life. A new belief in devolution. A new approach to policy-making. A new name. But, most importantly, a new positive message about the benefits of staying in and strengthening our United Kingdom. A new party. A new unionism. A new dawn.”

There have been some rumblings of support from some Tories in Westminster, and the general belief is that Mr Fraser’s democratic mandate (should he win) will allow him to manage the party as he sees fit.
On the other hand some Westminster Tories have reacted with knee jerk anger to any threat to their dominance within their Party but fears that the move will encourage independence are perhaps misplaced. The centre right is pro-unionist and will resist the move to destroy the current constitutional status quo. However, the move could do more to advance the march of federalism than any other event since devolution, even perhaps more than the recent electoral successes of the SNP.

Some commentators have likened the move to situation in Germany where the Bavarian CSU operates as an ally of the CDU a Party which covers the rest of Germany. This argument has its merits, but also its limitations. Germany has 16 states, meaning the CDU contests and represents the vast majority of Germany. Without Scotland, the rump of the Tory Party will contest only England and Wales.

Although Wales does not have a politically effective Nationalist party, the Scottish Tory split could lead to demands for a dedicated English Conservative Party organisation and, in the light of the unresolved West Lothian question and the Scottish Parliament’s increasing power, confidence and independence, the calls for an English Parliament will surely grow as will the demand for a truly English Nationalist Party like the English Democrats.

This sequence of events depends on the success of the new party. If the new Scottish Tories do manage to reinvent themselves, regain the trust of the electorate and create a united centre-right party to challenge the diverse and dominant left in the country, Labour and the Liberal Democrats may feel inclined, even obliged, to follow their lead and create separate entities to competitively contest elections. With this, a federal UK becomes the inevitable medium term consequence.

To suggest that the rebranding and reforming of even one of the main Establishment parties could lead to a historic change in the UK itself is an ambitious suggestion and one that relies on a fair degree of speculation. However, it will undoubtedly put the Conservatives (or whatever they become) on an equal footing with the SNP as a dedicated party for Scotland and demonstrates the ever-diverging political trends between Scotland the rest of the UK.

It is interesting to note that the “Blue Labour” movement has also been talking about becoming more pro-English and UKIP, the leading traditional British Nationalist party, is also considering adopting some measures to address England’s democratic deficit –both moves are considered only in order to try to preserve an increasingly constitutionally precarious “United” Kingdom and for tactical electoral advantage.

A new dawn for Scotland?

The Scotsman:-

Salmond’s Government in focus: 100 days is a long time in politics

First Minister Alex Salmond is greeted by Nicola Sturgeon after the landslide victory in May that signalled a new era of power for the SNP

By Eddie Barnes

May’s landslide victory marked a new emboldened SNP, but also asked some serious questions of Alex Salmond, writes Eddie Barnes

NO FUSS this time round. Four years ago, in a 20-page congratulations card to himself, Alex Salmond declared himself “proud to report back” on the new SNP administration’s first steps. Student fees had been abolished; tolls scrapped; A&E Unit closures overturned. The new Scottish Government had just passed its first test in dealing with the attempted terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport – and come through with flying colours. For the SNP, it was a glad new dawn.

“There’ll be no glossy brochures,” says a source close to the First Minister this week by contrast. Salmond’s second 100-days mark arrives on Thursday. It comes hot on the heels of another less welcome anniversary which occurred yesterday: the second year since the SNP administration freed the Lockerbie bomber, which brought with it a welter of bad publicity for Salmond’s administration. A second-term government must always carry baggage – good and bad. And so, while this week the SNP Government will no doubt issue the usual list of achievements to mark its 100 days in office, it seems that Team Salmond has opted against making a song and dance of the first milestone of SNP 2.0. After all, his aides note, it’s the same faces in many of the same jobs – why make a big deal of it?

On one level this is true. Ministers such as Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Russell and John Swinney have returned to the same desks they left in April, with the same bulging in-trays warning of the same issues – the most pressing of which is the fact they are running an ever more costly public sector without any new money. But, on another, it is misleading. For this SNP Government is a very different one from its predecessor. May’s incredible landslide victory for the party, which handed them an overall majority in parliament, and ensured the certainty of an independence referendum saw to that.

Ironically, the voters liked the last SNP Government so much – the one constrained by its slim minority rule – that they ended up returning a completely different one – one which now holds complete power. The verdict of the Scottish people was a resounding request for seconds, please. Instead they ended up with an entirely different menu. This new government now sets forth trying to keep the existing show on the road, while campaigning to persuade Scots that a new dawn is required. How have they begun?

The new SNP Government is nothing if not emboldened by the people’s resounding vote of approval. The pace has risen notably in the 100 days since May, when it became clear that the referendum would be taking place at some point in this parliamentary term.

St Andrew’s House, the government’s Edinburgh HQ, is signed up entirely to the SNP’s credo, with Sir Peter Housden, the Permanent Secretary, said to be utterly committed to Salmond’s leadership.

Four years ago, 100 days in, the first Nationalist administration had limited itself to discussions about devolving firearm legislation to Scotland. Four years on, with those powers having been willingly handed over by the UK government, such a small request seems almost quaint. The new Government isn’t mucking about. Today sees Salmond publish a detailed paper to the UK government urging them to consider a Plan B on the economy – by spending heavily on capital investment. That comes hot on the heels of another paper last week, proposing the devolution of corporation tax to Scotland. That itself was part of a flurry of demands, issued by Salmond in the weeks after the election result, when he handed over a shopping list to the UK government of items he would like – including powers over alcohol excise, the Crown Estate and borrowing.

For voters who may only have latched on to the policy most paraded by the SNP during the election campaign – to freeze council tax for five years – this shopping list, issued in their name, may have come as something of a surprise. The charge from the SNP’s opponents, most notably Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, is that the new SNP Government isn’t therefore acting on what voters backed in April, and has become a “steamroller government”, twisting the mandate it received from the people (to freeze council tax, maintain police numbers and ring-fence the NHS) into the one it wants for itself (to run a permanent campaign demanding every power going). At least we’ve got wheels, reply SNP MSPs, who have mocked Rennie for his “cheek” in even having the temerity to challenge the Nationalists after May saw them returned as “the Orkney and Shetland party”. Armed with the people’s mandate, they are having none of it.

This hints at the new sense of entitlement that has emerged within the new SNP administration since May. The day after the result, Salmond described the SNP as Scotland’s “national party”. His aides have talked of forming a “big bothy” in which all of Scotland’s views are represented within the party tent. But, for some, what this really is about is a new attitude which says: “If you don’t like what we’re doing, tough – we’re doing it.” A few straws in the wind have emerged into public view. In May, Education Secretary Mike Russell declared a moratorium on school closures – with local authority chiefs, to their fury, learning via the media. A few weeks later, Alex Salmond waded into judges on the UK Supreme Court over their decision to uphold Nat Fraser’s appeal against his sentence.

Last week, it was selectively leaked that the SNP would be introducing a new single police force in Scotland – a move bitterly opposed by some in the forces and across local government.

One source involved in the discussions claims: “Kenny [MacAskill, the justice secretary] is out to gag dissent by leaking this and hoping to silence chief constables over the next couple of weeks. The hope is that this kills off any criticism of the proposals because they are somehow inevitable.” Meanwhile, the cluster of interest groups which deal with the Edinburgh administration speak almost weekly of the regular hauling over the coals being doled out by Salmond’s advisers for those who step out of line by criticising SNP policy.

So what, you might ask. Such heavy-handed tactics are what well-drilled political outfits do – and were exactly the tactics used by the Labour UK government after the SNP won in 2007, when the same interest groups received some none-too-subtle reminders to remember whose side they were supposed to be on. The SNP can equally claim with justification that the complaints are coming from “the forces of conservatism”, opposition parties aiming pot-shots, or unionist opponents in the public sphere who will always spoil for a fight anyway.

The problem for Salmond, however, is that – whether motivated by partisan politics or not – a pattern has emerged which could stick. The fact is that the new SNP Government is incredibly powerful. Using that power brutally will therefore lead, as night follows day, to charges of bullying. The words of the Scottish Parliament’s former presiding officer Lord Steel last week, as he revealed he had resigned his advisory role to the Scottish Government because of Salmond’s comments on the Supreme Court, were particularly damaging. Declaring himself “appalled” by the way Salmond, MacAskill and an authorised spokesman for the government had spoken, he added, “I told Alex that I hoped this was not the way they were going to continue now that they had an overall majority, because if so I expected a growing number of complaints against ministers.”

Much of the backlash, it is fair to say, is caused by the massive personality of Salmond himself, and the fact that he so clearly enjoys and relishes flexing his power. One senior public figure in Scotland notes: “The truth is that if Alex likes you, then you’re his best pal and he can’t do enough for you. But if he doesn’t, be prepared. You’re out.”

No matter how Salmond chooses to lead, and no matter how successful electorally he is in the short-term, this period in office looks like a hard graft. There is not just the pressure of the referendum but also the crisis in the public finances to manage as well. The conflict between the two could be debilitating – and may prevent the SNP from doing the hard thinking that it knows it must on presenting a robust case for independence ahead of the big vote.

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald notes: “They are too busy doing devolution to be revolutionary.” Overworked by the pressing demands of keeping the country going, the likes of MacDonald fear that the hard work selling and explaining independence will go amiss (the current confusion over the party’s stance on what currency it will have after independence is a case in point). “It is a revolution that is needed such is the upheaval that we have seen across the world. I don’t think Alex has had the time to do some thinking. Maybe he thinks he can’t fight too many battles at once,” MacDonald adds.

The good news for the SNP is that this negative picture hasn’t yet stuck in the public eye. On Friday, it saw off its opponents once again to win a by-election in Edinburgh’s city centre. With Scottish Labour still in recovery mode after the election, and with no sign yet of a new leader emerging, there is every reason to expect that next year’s local authority elections when they come will see further SNP gains.

Strathclyde University politics professor James Mitchell, who is close to many SNP figures, adds that there is every reason to expect that whatever turmoil the next few years bring financially, it won’t be the SNP Government which gets the blame, but the Conservative-led administration in London. “They will get the blame whether it is their fault or not,” he declares.

He also believes that the SNP ministers, the civil service and the whole Nationalist team have only become stronger and more competent over four years in office – and that they will use the crisis in the public finances over the coming years as an opportunity to show off their credentials.

Certainly it is true that, whatever faults the Salmond administration has, the unambiguous evidence is that voters are overwhelmingly prepared to give it a fair wind.

And with a weak opposition, and an unpopular UK government in power, the Nationalists look set to maintain their position as Scotland’s domestic party of choice for the next few years.

Several Labour figures have already privately declared they do not believe they have a chance of winning the 2016 Scottish elections, meaning that the SNP is likely to remain in power for the next nine years.

Whether the referendum is won or lost, a government with such power can change a country for ever. This is within Salmond’s grasp. But no-one needs reminding about the perils of absolute power. One hundred days on, Salmond and the SNP Government has never looked stronger. Therein lies his greatest danger.

http://www.scotsman.com/features/Salmond39s-Government-in-focus-100.6822242.jp?articlepage=1

A different tale in two nations?

Compare this Scottish news item with the line that Labour tries to spin in England about “Britishness”:-

HENRY MCLEISH: SCOTLAND NEEDS FREEDOM TO RUN ITS FINANCES

Former First Minister Henry McLeish has called for Labour to back Scottish financial independence.



Sunday August 21,2011

By Ben Borland

FORMER First Minister Henry McLeish has called for Labour to back Scottish financial independence or face political oblivion north of the Border.

Labour veteran Henry McLeish said yesterday that complete fiscal freedom from the UK is the only way his party can return to the front foot against the SNP.

He has put the case for the sensational policy U-turn to UK Labour leader Ed Miliband and senior Scots MP Jim Murphy and said he is “very optimistic” they will agree.

Mr McLeish also described secret plans to bring in a Scottish leader from outwith Holyrood as an “own goal”.

The SNP welcomed his comments, but warned that the rest of Scottish Labour is still “out of touch”.

Mr McLeish, who was First Minister from 2000 to 2001, said the Labour-backed Calman plan to give Holyrood more power was “not sufficient”.

He added: “Fiscal autonomy or devolution max, when Labour gets to that point then we will have a credible alternative to put against independence and there is no doubt it would win the support of the Scottish people in a referendum.

“I have talked to a lot of people in the party about this, including Ed Miliband. This is Labour’s time. Labour can’t afford to have another humiliating defeat like 2011 or 2007.

“The reason why the SNP is talking up fiscal independence or devo max is they know they can’t get full independence past the Scottish people.

“The SNP is softening its rhetoric on independence and it is important that Labour is not outmanoeuvred again. We can claim that alternative position.”

Mr McLeish also said it would be a mistake to form a “Unionist alliance” with the Conservatives ahead of the SNP’s independence referendum.

Mr Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, and MSP Sarah Boyack are carrying out a review of Scottish Labour following its ballot box hammering on May 5. One of the main issues under consideration is who should replace Iain Gray as leader.

Mr McLeish confirmed rumours that some within the party want to recruit a Scottish leader from Westminster, who would promise to stand down in 2015 and move to Holyrood.

Although supposed ‘heavy hitters’ like Mr Murphy and Douglas Alexander have ruled themselves out, new MPs Tom Greatrex and Gregg McClymont are being considered.

Mr McLeish said: “I’m not sure that the people who think this is a solution have fully thought through the practical implications.”

SNP MP and Treasury Spokesman Stewart Hosie said the former Fife MP and MSP is “right” to back financial independence.

He said: “Henry McLeish joins leading job creators Sir Tom Hunter and Jim McColl in recognising the importance of Scotland having full financial responsibility.”

http://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/266249

Is the UK really a democracy at all?

Can the UK properly call itself a genuine and free democracy when a leading historian and academic cannot even publically express his point of view without being vilified by the political and media Establishment?

Here is the link to the appallingly badly chaired discussion on Newsnight:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517

And here is Dr Starkey’s article in the Daily Telegraph of today, (note – Ed Miliband’s attack on free speech):-

UK riots: It’s not about criminality and cuts, it’s about culture… and this is only the beginning. Condemned as a racist for his comments on ‘Newsnight’ following the riots, the historian David Starkey speaks out against those who tried to silence him for confronting the gangster culture that has ruptured our society.

‘My friends believe my greatest error was to mention Enoch Powell’: historian David Starkey. Photo: MARTIN POPE

By David Starkey

What a week! It’s not every day that you’re the subject of direct personal attack from the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. On Tuesday, after he had spoken at his old school, Haverstock Comprehensive, about the riots, Ed Miliband was invited by a member of the audience to “stamp out” the now-infamous opinions I had expressed on the same subject on last Friday’s Newsnight.

Mr Miliband might have replied that he disagreed with what I said, but in a liberal democracy defended my right to say it since it broke no laws. Not a bit of it, I fear. Instead, Miliband – the son of a refugee who fled from Nazi Europe to preserve his life and freedom of thought – agreed enthusiastically with the questioner. Mine were “racist comments”, he said, “[and] there should be condemnation from every politician, from every political party of those sorts of comments.”

Strong words. But what do they mean? Well, the following statements are verbatim quotations of some of the principal points I made on Newsnight: “A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion.” “This sort of black male [gang] culture militates against education.” “It’s not skin colour, it’s cultural.”

“Disgusting and outrageous”, are they? In which case, those who agree with Miliband must believe the opposite of all these. They are therefore convinced that gang culture is personally wholesome and socially beneficial.

But how, then, to explain the black educationalists Tony Sewell and Katharine Birbalsingh defending the substance of my comments on “gangsta” culture, as well as Tony Parsons, who wrote in the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror that, “without the gang culture of black London, none of the riots would have happened – including the riots in other cities like Manchester and Birmingham where most of rioters were white”.

Even stranger is Miliband’s apparent notion that, far from militating against educational achievement as I suggested, “the gang culture of black London” must therefore be a seedbed for scholarship and sound learning. Odd, isn’t it, that Waterstone’s bookshop was the only business unlooted in the Ealing riots? And odder still that Lindsay Johns, the Oxford-educated mixed-race writer who mentors young people in Peckham, argues passionately against “this insulting and demeaning acceptance” of a fake Jamaican – or “Jafaican” – patois. “Language is power”, Johns writes, and to use “ghetto grammar” renders the young powerless.

“So why,” some of my friends have asked, “didn’t you stop there?” “Why did you have to talk about David Lammy MP sounding ‘white’? Or white chavs becoming ‘black’?” The answer is that I thought my appearance on Newsnight was supposed to be part of a wide-ranging discussion about the state of the nation. Central to any such discussion, it seems to me, are the successes and failures of integration in Britain in the past 50 years. And it was these that I was trying to address.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that my remarks on this subject produced especial outrage. I was accused of condemning all black culture; of using white and black culture interchangeably to denote “good and bad”, and of saying that blacks could only get on by rejecting black culture. Actually, I said none of those things and nothing that I did say could have been construed as such by any fair-minded person.

Instead, I was trying to point out the very different patterns of integration at the top and bottom of the social scale. At the top, successful blacks, like David Lammy and Diane Abbot, have merged effortlessly into what continues to be a largely white elite: they have studied at Oxbridge and gone on to Oxbridge-style careers, such as that of an MP.

But they have done so at the cost of losing much of their credibility with blacks on the street and in the ghettos. And here, at the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the “chavs”, who have integrated into the pervasive black “gangsta” culture: they wear the same clothes; they talk and text in the same Jafaican patois; and, as their participation in recent events shows, they have become as disaffected and riotous.

Trying to explain why, led me to what all my friends agree was my greatest error: to mention Enoch Powell. Tactically, of course, they are right, as the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound.

Unfortunately, the speech and still more the reaction to it, are also central to any proper understanding of our present discontents. For Powell’s views were popular at the time and the London dockers marched in his support. The reaction of the liberal elites in both the Labour and Tory parties, who had just driven Powell into the wilderness, was unanimous: the white working class could never be trusted on race again. The result was a systematic attack over several decades: on their perceived xenophobic patriotism, on symbols like the flag of St George, even – and increasingly – on the very idea of England itself.

The attack was astonishingly successful. But it left a void where a sense of common identity should be. And, for too many, the void has been filled with the values of “gangsta” culture.

Consider the converse. One of the most striking things about the England riots is where they did not happen: Yorkshire, the North East, Wales and Scotland. These areas contain some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the country. But they are also characterised by a powerful sense of regional or national identity and difference that cuts across all classes and binds them together. And it is this, I am sure, which has inoculated them against the disease of “gangsta” culture and its attendant, indiscriminate violence.

Scotland, Alex Salmond says smugly, is a “different culture”. It is indeed, since the Scots are allowed – and even encouraged – to be as racist as they please and hate the English with glad abandon.

I do not want a similar licensed xenophobia here. But an English nationalism we must have. And it must be one that includes all our people: white and black and mixed race alike.

Fortunately, there is a powerful narrative of freedom that runs like a golden thread through our history. “The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe in,” counsel declared repeatedly in Somersett’s Case, about the legality of slavery in England, in 1772.

We must focus on the righting of the wrong rather than the original wrong itself. The former heals; the latter divides. And we have had enough of division. There is a final point. If all the people of this country, black and white alike, are to enter fully into our national story, as I desperately hope they will, they must do so on terms of reciprocity. In other words, I must be as free to comment on problems in the black community as blacks are to point the finger at whites, which they do frequently, often with justice, and with impunity.

For the other pernicious legacy of the reaction to Powell has been an enforced silence on the matter of race. The subject has become unmentionable, by whites at any rate. And any breach has been punished by ostracism and worse. As the hysterical reaction to my remarks shows, the witch-finders already have their sights on me, led by that pillar of probity and public rectitude, Piers Morgan, who called on Twitter for the ending of my television career within moments of the Newsnight broadcast.

But the times have changed. Powell had to prophesy his “Tiber foaming with blood”. We, on the other hand, have already experienced the fires of Tottenham and Croydon. Moreover, the public mood is different from the acquiescent and deferential electorate of the Sixties. We are undeceived. We are tired of being cheated and lied to by bankers and MPs and some sections of the press.

We will not continue, I think, to tolerate being lied to and cheated in the matter of race. Instead of “not in front of the children”, we want honesty.

But this is only the beginning. The riots are the symptom of a profound rupture in our body politic and sense of national identity. If the rupture is not healed and a sense of common purpose recovered, they will recur – bigger, nastier and more frequently. Can we stop bickering and address this task of recovery and reconstruction – all together?

Doncaster, with our Mayor, shows the way!

17/08/11 – Dispersal order in Wheatley continues to be a success

A section 30 dispersal order, which was granted for six months in Wheatley at the beginning of June, has again proved its worth during the first few weeks of the summer holidays. Incidents of anti-social behaviour were down by 40% in July.

South Yorkshire Police and Doncaster Council applied for the order, which enables the police to disperse from the area groups of two or more people causing a nuisance, after residents raised a number of concerns about antisocial behaviour, including the use of abusive and foul language, criminal damage, littering and intimidating behaviour.

Activities have also been organised for young people to give them something positive to do with their evenings. The Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) is hosting multi sports activities for youngsters. Local youth clubs have extended opening hours and there have been a number of drop-in sessions organised at the Wheatley Youth Club and the Kingfisher Youth Club.

The Wheatley centre is open Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday nights and is open to young people aged between 11 and 19. The Kingfisher youth club runs every Wednesday and caters for young people aged 8 – 12. Since the dispersal order was put in place, more than 50 young people have attended the youth clubs on a weekly basis.

There is also an under-age club night planned for 11 – 16 year olds from across Doncaster at the Trinity nightclub on 25th August. The beach party night starts at 7pm and doors close at 10pm.

Peter Davies, Mayor of Doncaster, said: “Cutting anti-social behaviour is a priority for us and it’s encouraging to hear that incident numbers are still falling. Residents are telling us that this order is making a difference and we’ll continue to look at what else we can do to ensure people feel safe where they live.”

Police Sergeant John Hunter for the Wheatley Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) said: “It is really pleasing to see the dispersal order making such a difference in the area. We have seen a decrease in the number of groups of young people hanging around and residents have told me they feel safer. The SNT will continue to patrol the area and enforce the order if necessary.”

Councillor Eva Hughes, Ward Member for Wheatley, said: “We’ve worked closely with Wheatley residents to get this order put in place and it’s really pleasing to see the positive effect it’s having.”

For media enquiries contact Chris Dawson, Communications Officer, on 01302 736697

The view from the other side of St George’s Channel.

Scots and Welsh quick to distance themselves from England’s shame

The Irish Independent:- http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mary-kenny-scots-and-welsh-quick-to-distance-themselves-from-englands-shame-2848180.html

An unexpected outcome of the riots which took place in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Huddersfield, Nottingham, Leicester, Gloucester and the Medway last week was the revival of the concept of “England”.

When some commentators referred to the “riots which broke out in Britain”, the Scots and the Welsh were very quick to point out: “No, not Britain. England.”

Quite so. There were no such disturbances in Scotland or Wales. Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales.

There were no such disturbances in Northern Ireland (much less the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands): the United Kingdom comprises Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the other islands under the writ of the crown.

All the trouble happened in England. The riotous week is now referred to as “the burning of England”, or “land of loot and burning”.

In London, some commentators took to referring to the rioters as “Englishmen”. One commentator, advocating tough policing, said that in Northern Ireland the police were known to use robust methods of crowd control. “If we don’t mollycoddle Irishmen, why should we mollycoddle Englishmen?”

It is interesting that it has taken this distressing and sometimes shameful series of events to restore the concept of “England” — a concept that had been buried, for many decades now, under the wider description of “Britain” or “The UK”.

It’s funny, because until The Troubles in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and 80s, Irish nationalists traditionally spoke about “England” as the hereditary oppressor — rather than Britain. All Michael Collins’s writings about the national struggle refer to “England”. So do all Patrick Pearse’s. So do Yeats’s — in his celebrated and rousing poem, ‘Easter 1916’, he wrote that line, “For England may keep faith/After all that’s been done and said”.

But from the 1970s, and perhaps even before, England became “the Brits”. As Welsh and Scottish regiments were very much part of the Crown forces, perhaps that was accurate.

Yet it was all linked to a wider agenda in which “England” had been subsumed into “Britain” and “the United Kingdom”. Partly this arose because Scots who were nationalists — but also, paradoxically, unionists — wanted to be included in “Britain”, but did not want to be included in “England” (as the French would refer to the British in general as “Les Anglais”).

Meanwhile, airport schedules referred to the whole realm as the “United Kingdom”. Scroll down the booking system of an airline for “country of origin” and the United Kingdom pops up just before the United States, (and just after the United Arab Emirates).

Thus “the UK” came into common parlance, and hardly anyone spoke about “England” any more, except in the context of tourism. Even then, it was minimalist. Crossing into Wales, there are huge signs, in Welsh and English, telling travellers they are welcome to Wales (‘CROESO I CYMRU’); cross back the other way, and there is just a little apologetic signpost somewhere along the road bearing the information that you are now in Shropshire.

England, having been the dominant nation in what was once the four nations in the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, in recent years became the most invisible one. Especially as the Scots and the Welsh followed the examples of Irish nationalists and affirmed their identity. But you can never suppress what is inherent in any culture, and “England” began to reassert herself in a number of ways.

First came the cross of St George, often hoisted at football matches. A perfectly nice group representing English Heritage emerged and then a rather nasty one called the English Defence League followed.

As Scotland got its own parliament, there were English protests about “the West Lothian question”: it was unfair that Scottish Members of Parliament could vote on English matters at Westminster, while English MPs could not vote on Scottish matters in Edinburgh.

And then came the riots which, the Celtic nations were insistently pointing out, were confined to England — which indeed they were.

There are social problems in England which are different from those in Scotland and Wales. Scotland has a better education system (although a more serious national problem with alcohol, and with sectarianism too); Welsh society is more family-based and with greater community cohesion based on language and religious ties, and it has not had to absorb so many migrants.

So England has re-emerged as a separate concept. It’s just rather sad that it has taken this week of civil disorder — and loss of life — to make that point.

Britain, and the United Kingdom, are political, or passport, definitions. England, Scotland and Wales are cultural and even national distinctions, and it is right that they should be seen separately. Poetry and rhetoric, too, have always favoured cultural identity, rather than political entities: Browning didn’t write, “Oh, to be in Britain, now that April’s there” and Nelson didn’t say, “Britain expects that every man this day will do his duty”.

And there is one consolation for the men and women of the English nation this week: the triumphal performance of “England” in its cricket game against India.

Mary Kenny – Irish Independent




Sign the English Parliament E-petition!

There is now open one of the government’s new E-petitions:- “Creation of an English Parliament”; which has been registered with the Cabinet Office site by my old colleague Andrew Constantine.

Although if we get 100,000 signatures it will only trigger a debate in that House of opposition to an English Partliament (the Commons), it will nevertheless help to publicise our Cause and also to force our opponents to show their hand.

The link to sign is here >>> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/78