You could not have a clearer example of the difference in mentality between that of the Chinese ruling elite and that of the British Political Establishment. The Chinese have no compunction in doing whatever suits their national interests whereas ours do what suits their globalist, internationalist aspirations in posturing on the “World Stage” often in flagrant disregard of the interests of “Britain”, let alone ENGLAND!

China levies £14,000 a year for every non-chinese employee

Foreign businesses in China have attacked new legislation requiring them to pay as much as £14,000 a year for each non-Chinese member of staff.
By Malcolm Moore, Daily Telegraph reporter in Shanghai

The law, introduced on October 15, requires employers to pay 37pc of salary, and employees 11pc, into China’s social insurance schemes. Contributions are capped at between 9,000 yuan (£885) and 11,600 yuan, depending on location. In return, foreigners will be entitled to a pension, basic healthcare, maternity, unemployment and workplace injury insurance.
Foreign companies and the Chinese authorities have been left bewildered by the regulations, which were passed just three months after a draft was issued for consultation.
“I raised the tax change [with Shanghai’s mayor] at the weekend,” said Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of advertising company WPP. “The reason they have made the law, I suppose, is they want more jobs to go to Chinese [rather than foreigners].”
WPP employs 200 foreigners among its 12,000-strong workforce in China, leaving it with perhaps a £2m liability. General Motors, which also has at least 200 foreigners on the mainland, faces a similar bill.
The law has also caused confusion. Xu Yanjun, deputy head of the ministry of Human Resources social security management centre, said there is no plan on how to collect the contributions or distribute the benefits.
The confusion has sparked hopes the regulations may be dropped. Opponents have pointed out foreigners should not have to pay into a pension, or for unemployment benefits, since they are not allowed to remain in the country if they are not working.
China has promised workers will be allowed to claim back their pension fund when they depart.
“The government looked at the million expats in China and thought, well, $10,000 from each of them would be a good earner,” said one accountant in Shanghai who asked not to be named.

Many history books have something to teach us about English Politics. This is one example:- Michael Wood, In Search of England, 1999. Here is a significant extract which even if not entirely accepted as gospel helps to frame the debate.

“The modern English state was not created in one go. It is a product of a long – and continuing – process, but its roots lie in the Anglo-Saxon period, just as the Victorians thought. But from the beginning, it was not about race, or blood, as some Victorian racial theorists liked to say. It was rather about acceptance of common language and authority, about ‘group feeling’, about allegiance to the state and its way of doing things. That’s the core of the English story.

In conclusion, what we can say is this. The Anglo Saxons created England; the Normans and their successors attempted to create Great Britain, not succeeding half so well, despite their long attempts to dominate the cultures and societies of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. By the late tenth century, the rulers of the English had already come to a modus Vivendi with their Celtic neighbours: marking the limits of England almost exactly as it is today – that shape of England which Tom Paulin could not visualize. It was the Normans who tried to subdue the whole island, and their failure has finally been acknowledged in the late twentieth century.

England, on the other hand, is the creation of the Old English. It is something real to go back to, unlike so many modern countries whose attempts to build such allegiances have had to be fabricated. This is not to say that it doesn’t need reform now; not least the system of democracy itself – for who now would claim the English are better off than, say, the Germans? But it has a long and distinguished pedigree, which, contrary to the modern critiques, is more than the product of history than myth. It goes back to Gregory the Great, to Bede, and the Old English and Norman lawmakers, and for a country on a small island off the shores of Europe, its practical achievements in history have been considerable.

At root was a grand idea – the sense of a chosen people – but also something very practical: a workable conception of society, of order and of mutual obligations. The latter is still in place and still hardworking; and even the former has taken a long time to fade away.”

What do you think of that?

I have just been sent a link to an interesting article on EU governance. My correspondent wondered:-
“Dear Robin, Can you believe it that they would say such things about the EEC, the head of the Green Party who got elected in Brighton as well!
I replied:- “Yes she is thinking that the EU is a single nation state rather than a collection of nations”
The true meaning of the word “Democracy” is embedded in the origin word itself. It is derived from ancient Greek and means the ‘Rule of the Demos’. The Demos is nothing less than the Sovereign People.
In the paradymn state of ancient democracy , that of the Polis of ancient Athens, a man could not be a citizen unless both of his parents were Athenian citizens. Interestingly every male citizen was duty bound to attend meetings of the citizen Assembly to vote on the political issues of the day or he would be branded as an “Idiot”.
A fundamental precondition of democracy is to have a clear idea of what constitutes the People (citizen body). The Internationalist/Globalist EU lacks even a rudimentary notion of Popular Sovereignty and so in no meaningful sense is it a Democracy let alone a proper Nation state based upon the idea of nationhood. Multi national entities with a state structure imposed from above are usually called ‘Empires’!

The article was posted on October 27, 2011 by Thomas More Institute
http://thomasmoreinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/common-cause-on-the-european-unions-flaws/

Common Cause on the European Union’s Flaws

The parliamentary debate which occurred on Monday, upon a non-binding motion proposing that a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU be held, has been widely portrayed as a debate internal to the Conservative party, with its leadership and frontbench squaring up to those on the backbenches. More specifically, the issue has been portrayed as a battle between the Tory Right and Mr. Cameron’s more liberal government. An article in The Guardian was headlined, ‘Cameron’s Little Englanders need some German Lessons’.

It has not been adequately noticed, however, that one of those who spoke in favour of the motion on Monday was the MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas. She is leader of the Green Party, a body not noted for advocating ‘right-wing’ policies or for its Euroscepticism-rather, quite the reverse in both fields.

In the debate Ms. Lucas declared:

In my experience, many of today’s European citizens are simply no longer sure what the EU is for. In my view, the ambitious free trade project at the heart of its original treaties has become an end in itself. Debates about the future of the EU have been dominated by the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged in terms of economic growth and the removal of market barriers alone. As a result, the EU has failed to address fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has therefore also failed to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of enthusiasm and common cause, thus calling into question its own legitimacy.

In order to tackle the new threats and challenges we face today and to deliver a fair, sustainable and peaceful Europe into the 21st century and beyond, the EU must undergo radical reform. It must become more democratic and accountable, less bureaucratic and remote. It also needs to have a more compelling vision of its role and purpose, and a referendum would provide an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. To try to shut down that opportunity is, I think, very dangerous. It is possible to be pro a reformed EU and in favour of a referendum.

Ms. Lucas went on to criticise the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty saga as ‘extraordinary arrogance’. Ms. Lucas’s speech is interesting on account of the attention it gave to the flaws and problems of the current EU rather than for anything she had to say about remedies and solutions. She highlighted the democratic deficit.

A democracy that works?

Every five years there takes place the usual electoral rigmaroles of candidate selection, campaigns and late-night vote-counting for the European Parliament. Members are elected and groups formed within the Parliament of like-minded parties from the different nations. It might be expected by the naive that the largest grouping would form an administration, and the second largest an opposition, with smaller groups also in opposition. Individual members might then, in our dreams, also be able to use their mandate to introduce legislative proposals, with the majority administration mounting a serious programme. None of this in fact happens.

The largest grouping has only the privilege of nominating one of its own to act as President of the Commission. The ‘Ministers’ or Commissioners are nominated by the member states and do not have to accord politically with the largest grouping in the Parliament. This ‘government’ must act in accord with ‘European Interests’, something which is incredibly vague and has little to do with what the voters were presented with at the ballot box.

For a democracy to be properly democratic the leading figures in the executive must be accountable, directly and indirectly, to the electors. This accountability results in individuals’ performance in office being open to judgement over the decisions made and laws passed. Those who are elected must be endowed with a capacity for legislative initiative. Currently that is the prerogative solely of the unelected Commission, thereby rendering any meaningful manifesto commitment given by an individual running for election to the European Parliament as unachievable. The elected individual can only pass judgement upon, and amend, such legislation as is placed in front of him or her.

Arguments about the conflict between an individual nation’s sovereignty and the power and role of a body such as the EU, whilst of great importance, are not relevant to this particular issue. Nor are the relative advantages and disadvantages of democracy as contrasted with other forms of governance. The issue is that the cloak of a democracy which the EU vaunts, and advocates globally, is empty, for it is not practised within its own system of governance. That is the notable point made by the avidly pro-European Ms. Lucas.

Alex Salmond must think he has been given a fantastic Guy Faulks day present by the increasingly irrelevent Scots Tory party!

They have elected a political novice without any vision or strategy to make them relevent in Scotland. Just look at this clueless clip from her unsuccessful but well funded 2009 campaign to be elected to Westminster >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8339979.stm

Here is the story as reported by that paragon of impartial reporting, her former employers.

Ruth Davidson elected new Scottish Conservative leader
Ruth Davidson tells the BBC that she offers “the generational change that our party has been looking for”

Andrew Black

Political reporter, BBC Scotland

As a 32-year-old, newly elected, openly gay Tory MSP, Ruth Davidson was often described as the fresh-faced, new generation of the Scottish Conservative Party.

But, compared with Murdo Fraser’s radical plans for the party, Ms Davidson almost seemed more of a status quo candidate.

Not only does the former BBC journalist oppose further new powers for Holyrood, describing those to be delivered through the Scotland Bill as “a line in the sand”, but she has also mounted a vigorous campaign against the notion of a new party to replace the Scots Tories.

It was the Ruth Davidson campaign which facilitated a statement by major party donor Sir Jack Harvie, of the Focus on Scotland group, in which he refused to bankroll a breakaway party.

Ms Davidson, who only became a Glasgow list MSP in May, said the leadership campaign became distracted by the debate over disbanding and rebranding the Scottish Conservatives, arguing that real change only comes from asking people what matters to them.

It seems that’s what party members thought too.

And what of Murdo Fraser? He’s regarded as a skilled politician. But, given his insistence that the Scottish Conservative brand is dead, will he really feel he can fit back into the party – and will they want him?

———————————————————————————

The 32-year-old beat off competition from the party’s deputy leader, Murdo Fraser, who was seen as the front runner in the contest.

Mr Fraser had wanted to abolish the Scottish Conservatives in favour of a new centre-right party.

Ms Davidson was elected in a ballot of 8,000 Scottish party members, which has taken place during the past few weeks.

Two other Tory MSPs, Jackson Carlaw and Margaret Mitchell, also stood for the leadership.

Ms Davidson, a former BBC journalist who was first elected as a Glasgow MSP in the May Holyrood election, will now lead the entire party in Scotland, not just the Conservative MSP group.

She replaces Annabel Goldie, who has led the party since 2005, but decided to step aside in the wake of the SNP’s landslide election win and the last UK election, during which the Conservatives returned only one Scottish MP.

In her victory address, Ms Davidson said Scottish Conservatism was “alive and kicking”.

Challenges ahead for new Tory leader
She said: “Annabel has been a fantastic leader of the MSP group and we all owe her a great debt for her service and for her hard work over a number of years.

“But this is the first time that our members have been asked to elect a leader for the whole party in Scotland and I’ve met our members from Selkirk to Shetland and all points in between.

“They’ve been engaged, they’ve been enthusiastic, they’ve been welcoming and they’re excited about our bright future too.”

Ms Davidson added: “A political party is not a leader, a political party is its membership and I want to bring our members at all levels much closer together in our party going forward and to take our party forward in unity.”

Ms Davidson pledged to overhaul the party machinery in Scotland and bring new, modern and relevant policies to the people of Scotland.

Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed his party’s new leader in Scotland.

He said: “I am delighted to congratulate Ruth on winning this leadership election and look forward to working with her to strengthen the Union and build a better future for Scotland.”

Ms Goldie said the election marked a key point in the history of the party and a crucial point in Scottish politics.

Congratulating Ms Davidson, she said: “We have a big obligation to our own party but we have an even bigger one to the Scottish public. I wish Ruth every success in taking the Scottish Conservatives forward.

“The future is exciting, I promise her that I shall not be a back seat driver and I am confident that she is more than equal to taking on Alex Salmond.”

Following the result, Mr Fraser said: “Clearly I’m disappointed that I was not able to persuade more of our members that my vision for the future is the correct one.

“But I congratulate Ruth Davidson on her victory, and she will have my full support, as she tries to take the party forward.”

Mr Fraser secured 2,096 first preference votes against Ms Davidson’s 2,278. With second preference votes counted, Ms Davidson won by 2,983 votes to 2,417.

There were 5,676 votes cast in a turnout of 63.4%.

‘Big task’

First minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond said: “Congratulations to Ruth Davidson on her success, and I wish her well. My own view is that Annabel Goldie was a highly successful leader for the Conservatives in Scotland, and maximised the Tory vote here.

“That merely underlines the scale of the task for Ruth Davidson in motivating her party – as does the number of Scottish Tory members who actually voted in this contest, and the fact that her main opponent proposed winding up the party.”

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said that following in Ms Goldie’s footsteps would be a big task for Ms Davidson.

“While I disagree with her fundamentally on politics I look forward to the contribution she will make to the Scottish Parliament,” he added.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said: “I am really pleased to congratulate Ruth on her new appointment as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I look forward to working with her, in her new role, as we strive to hold the SNP government to account.”

Ms Davidson campaigned with a pledge to fight further new powers for Scotland.

She said the Scotland Bill to increase Holyrood’s financial responsibility, currently going through Westminster, was “a line in the sand” and strongly opposed Mr Fraser’s vision for a new party.

The Financial Times is a paper that often produces carefully considered and thought provoking analyses of news items. Here is a good example.

Most media outlets failed to notice the significance of Alex Salmond’s latest political masterstroke. In one fell swoop his shift to a “Devo Max” referendum option will split the opposition to the Independence option and provide a classic Causus Belli against Westminster when that august body of deep thinkers rejects it!

Little England: Britain sleepwalks towards break-up
By Philip Stephens October 24, 2011

Alex Salmond addressed the Scottish National party’s ?annual conference the other day. Few beyond Scotland will have noticed. That is a pity. As David Cameron’s Conservatives resume their obsessive debate about leaving Europe, Mr Salmond is advancing Scotland’s departure from Britain.
North and south of the border with England, the SNP leader is a grown-up among adolescents. Alone among Britain’s party leaders, he has the confidence and guile to change the political weather. As Scotland’s first minister he is running rings around unionist opponents in Edinburgh and Westminster.

Mr Cameron is comfortable in 10 Downing Street. Labour’s Ed Miliband is settling in for what could be an uncomfortably long spell as opposition leader. Nick Clegg has lost the haunted expression he wore during the Liberal Democrats’ first year in coalition. These are not leaders, though, who rewrite the terms of political debate.
Mr Salmond is in a different class. You don’t have to like or agree with him to acknowledge he has recast the argument about the 300-year-old union binding Scotland to England. Will Scotland still be tied to its southern neighbour in, say, 15 years hence? I wouldn’t bet on it.

At the very least, the SNP is leading Scotland to self-rule in all but foreign affairs – an autonomy comparable to that enjoyed by Catalonia. Many will think this is no bad thing – for the English or the Scots. But surely the relationship is worthy of serious discussion across Britain? It would be curious were the union to sleepwalk towards break-up.

Unionists are doing their best to assist Mr Salmond. The voting system for the Edinburgh parliament was designed to prevent the SNP from ever winning a governing majority. Mr Salmond has now secured just such a position. The electoral checks and balances failed to anticipate the self-destructive capacity of the unionist parties.

The rot began to set in for Conservatives, of course, during Margaret Thatcher’s heyday. But the big failure since has been the Scottish Tories’ unwillingness to adjust to devolution. Decisions about health, education and welfare – things that matter to voters – are now taken in Edinburgh. Tories invite the charge of irrelevance by talking about nothing but the union.

Labour has been laid low by hubris. Gordon Brown saw Scotland as a personal fiefdom. It sustained Labour’s (disproportionately Scottish) politicians at Westminster. The party’s best and brightest from north of the border would not waste their time in local politics when they could play on a British stage.

Unsurprisingly, Scottish voters have woken up to the insult. Why should they back a party that treats their parliament as a parish council? Even now, leading Scottish Labour figures such as Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander prefer opposition at Westminster to a shot at the top job in Edinburgh.

The Lib Dems are paying a price for throwing in their lot with Mr Cameron. Mr Clegg wants to show that the party can shoulder responsibility at Westminster. A noble ambition. But there are better ways to win friends in Scotland.

None of this is to deny Mr Salmond’s achievement in taking nationalism from the margins to the mainstream of Scottish politics. Not too long ago much of polite society in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen saw the SNP as a collection of leftish cranks. Now it has begun to look like the party of the establishment.

This is not to say the business and professional classes have embraced separatism. My Scottish friends always draw an important distinction. They can vote for the SNP in Scotland while backing unionist parties in British general elections. Mr Salmond cannot be sure of winning if the choice posed in his promised referendum is a straightforward one between the status quo and independence.

Now, though, we know that there will be a third option. Mr Salmond used his conference speech to throw his weight behind a three-question plebiscite – with the third option providing for what is called “devolution max”. The implication is that the return to Scotland of full control over the economy, spending, taxation and borrowing would represent a moderate third way.

It would be nothing of the sort. Devolution max would put Scotland on the threshold of independence. It would demand a rewriting of the constitutional settlement that would inevitably leave many Scots asking why not independence. The fact that such an arrangement is presented as a “sensible compromise” speaks to Mr Salmond’s political genius in reframing the debate.

For many in Mr Cameron’s party, however, it seems that severing ties with Brussels is more important than preserving them with Edinburgh. Before they know it, the sceptics may find themselves demanding England’s rather than Britain’s departure from the European Union. Perhaps they will call themselves Little Englanders.

Following the News, back in June, that the FAs of Scotland Wales and NI had all objected to the proposal to create a Team GB for the 2012 Olympics I issued this press release:-

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

The English Democrats condemn GB Football team plan
British Olympic Association and F.A. plan tramples on English interests

English Democrats’ Chairman, Robin Tilbrook, has joined Plaid Cymru’s, Bethan Jenkins, in slamming the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) decision to announce that a GB football team will take part in the London Olympics in 2012.

Mr Tilbrook offered his full support to the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh FAs who have all condemned the announcement and confirmed that they had not agreed the plan nor taken part in any recent discussions which has been claimed by the BOA. He also criticized the English FA’s betrayal in supporting this plan.

The English Democrats’ Chairman, Robin Tilbrook, said:

“These plans pose a very serious threat to the future of football in England and the English International football team. For that reason it is extremely worrying that the BOA has made this statement and sought to further their damaging agenda.”

“It is particularly upsetting to see that the (English) Football Association (F.A.) and its puppet organization, the “official England Football Supporters Club” have betrayed the interests both of the English sporting nation and also of England’s football supporters. What more could we expect from the pretentions of an England only FA that cannot even bring itself to mention either England or English in its title?”

“We know that some influential forces within world football are more than keen to further a case to scrap the individual identities of the nations of the UK. The plans that the BOA has today laid out would be a gift for those forces and a hammer-blow for those who wish to maintain England’s independence as a footballing nation.”

ENDS

Now I see that the sellout of English Football by the FA is continuing apace as the Daily Record reported on the 20th October:-

Team GB football side becomes reality with appointment of coaches Stuart Pearce & Hope Powell
Oct 20 2011

FORMER England international Stuart Pearce and England Womens’ boss Hope Powell were today named as the head coaches of the British football teams for the London 2012 Olympics.

England Under-21 manager Pearce will be in charge of the men’s Olympic team, which could yet include David Beckham as an over-age player, while Powell will make history when she leads out the first Team GB squad to take part in the Olympic women’s football competition.

Powell, 44, has been England Women’s head coach since 1998, leading her side to four successive major finals including the Euro 2009 final.

Team GB was today made a reality despite strong objections – most notably from the SFA whose Chief Executive Stewart Regan today repeated his opposition to the plan.

However, an “extremely proud” Pearce, 49, who also coaches within Fabio Capello’s England senior set-up, said: “I’m very much looking forward to getting started.

“I was fortunate to be part of Euro 96, so I know how special it can be to play for your country on home soil at a major tournament.

“I’m sure this group of players will relish being part of not only a huge tournament in this country, but a unique one competing together and representing the UK.”

The Olympics will be an ideal chance to build on the Euro 2005 experience, which was also hosted in England, according to Powell.

She said: “The attendances at the games during Euro 2005 were a sign of progress for women’s football in this country, and it helped provide a platform for what has happened since then.

“From those finals where the players were playing against the best teams in Europe and in front of huge crowds, there was a real surge of enthusiasm.

“I think with the exposure and interest in the Olympics in this country we could see a similar impact from the tournament next summer.

“I’m delighted to be in the position to be able to take a team into such an illustrious tournament. I just wish it were starting tomorrow.”

The Football Association appointments, announced at Wembley Stadium where the Olympic finals will be held, are the first key step towards the tournament for the British sides which have been dogged by rows over the make-up and home region nationality of the team.

The British Olympic Association (BOA) struck a deal with The FA in June for Team GB to return to the pitch in a men’s Olympic football competition for the first time since the Rome 1960 Games and a debut Olympic appearance for the women’s squad.

This sparked an immediate outcry from by the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Football Associations who fear the possible impact on their independent status at Fifa if they join forces with the English.

Team selection will be non-discriminatory in terms of nationality, the BOA insist.

Players from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other territories who fall under the BOA’s remit as a National Olympic Committee can be considered for selection if they hit the approved competitive standard in line with the Olympic Charter, the BOA stressed.

Team GB managers will start to build a long list of potential players. They have to confirm their interest and availability to compete, if selected, following discussions with their respective professional clubs and Home Associations.

Beckham, the former England captain, has always stressed that he would like to fill one of the three potential spots available for players aged over 23 in an Olympic team.

As competition draws closer, this list will be cut. An announcement of the two squads will be made in the summer of 2012.

FA Chairman David Bernstein said: “I am delighted for both Hope and Stuart that they will lead us into next summer’s Olympic football tournament. With their excellent track record and experience I am convinced we have chosen the best coaches for these positions.

“These are important appointments given the unique nature of Team GB competing at London 2012. It will be a massive opportunity to take football into the Olympic arena, and for a group of players to take part in a truly special tournament on home soil.”

Team GB chef de mission Andy Hunt said: “We welcome the FA’s appointment of Hope Powell and Stuart Pearce – two managers who share experience of competing in major competition on home soil, as well as a great passion to proudly represent Team GB in the Olympic Games.

“When Hope leads the Team GB women’s football team out for their first match at the London 2012 Olympic Games, she will be making history. Team GB has never before been represented in the Olympic women’s football competition and we are delighted that she will have the opportunity to do so on home soil in front of our passionate fans.”

I notice that there is now a website campaigning against Team GB

Click here to view it >>> http://www.noteamgb.com/

I think that it is often useful to see what others think of us as it helps us to be objective about our own strengths and weaknesses.

A couple of days ago I was browsing, in my local Library, and picked up the AA’s guide book for England. I was partly inspired to do so because of the relief to find one about England as most of the other guidebooks which included England were about Great Britain or the UK and so I wanted to see what the AA had to say specifically about England and here it is:-

AA GUIDES: “ESSENTIAL ENGLAND”

THE ESSENCE OF ENGLAND

England really is a green and pleasant land, a place of rolling landscapes and scenery that can make your heart ache. But it’s also a varied and very cosmopolitan country, and offers so much that it is almost folly to try to cram everything into one visit (you simply won’t). The secret is not to be too hasty. Linger, perhaps longer than you intended, whenever a particular place captures your imagination. Be flexible, change your plans as you go along, and be prepared to spend time exploring street markets, go for a walk in a town park, or simply enjoy a pint of beer at the local pub.

Features

For many visitors it is hard to comprehend the variety England has to offer, from its charming country villages to the magnificent monuments of its great cities; it’s a place of extremes but also seems very homogeneous and united.

Today England is a world leader in art, music and fashion. Politically and economically it is still a major player, as a part of the United Kingdom. There is a great feeling of openness, of a willingness to share England’s heritage, whatever form it takes, with visitors and local people alike.

But England is also very European, in spite of the political bickering that goes on. Gone is the arrogance of imperialism; instead there is a recognition that England is one among many on the world’s stage, with a role for everyone. It is a more worldly, more enterprising place that above all has a developing pride in its history and its place in the world.

THE COUNTRY

· England is the largest political division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

· It is a highly industrialized and agriculturally developed country, which is densely populated and rich in history.

· London, the capital, is also by far England’s largest city, with over 7 million inhabitants.

· Birmingham in central England the next largest city, has around a million inhabitants.

· Northern England boasts a clutch of cities with around 500,000 inhabitants, including Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Sheffield and Newcastle. In the southwest, Bristol and Plymouth are the largest centres of population.

THE ECONOMY

· England’s most important exports are oil, gas, technology and financial services.

· London’s hosting of the 2012 Olympic Games should provide a welcome boost to the economy.

A FEW FACTS AND FIGURES

Area: 50,331 sq mils (130,357sq km).

Currency: pound (£) sterling

Population: approx 50 million in 2008

Language: English, with many varied dialects. Several hundred minority languages also spoken.

OPEN SPACES

· In England, ten National Parks, including the newest in the New Forest, offer almost 5,000sq miles (13,000sq km) of countryside, protected for their scenic and recreational value.

· There are also more than 40 designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANB), with a similar protected status.

· Spread across the English countryside is a massive network of thousands of miles of footpaths, bridleways (open to horses and cyclists) and byways.

· Most towns and cities have formal parks in or near their centres, while in the surrounding areas you’ll find country parks, where there is a less formal environment, and a greater chance of seeing some wildlife.

In the last few days the lid has been partially removed on the murky world of the British version of crony capitalism. It became clear that rich individuals and corporations were trying to buy influence within the Ministry of Defence through Liam Fox. This is a scenario which, I suspect, is all too common within the British Establishment system and probably runs through all Whitehall departments. We are now getting an insight into how donations of allegedly over £3.5 Million seem to have ‘influenced’ the re-writing of England’s Planning Laws (which, unlike those of Scotland, Wales and NI, are still within the control of the Carpetbaggers of the British Government!).

It is an old wisdom that you should “Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied” as Otto von Bismarck declared. With that comment in mind read this item from today’s Daily Telegraph:-

Hands Off Our Land: the ‘huge’ lobbying war chest behind the builders

Property developers have mounted a “huge” lobbying campaign backed by the rich and powerful to alter radically planning laws in favour of development, the head of the National Trust has said. By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor 17 Oct 2011

Sir Simon Jenkins, the organisation’s chairman, said the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the reforms, which campaigners say will give developers carte blanche to build on large parts of rural England. “We are up against some very rich and powerful people,” he told MPs on a Commons committee investigating the planning reforms. His comments come amid growing concerns about the influence of lobbyists and business figures on ministers and government policy. Plans to force lobbyists to sign up to a register in an attempt to increase transparency were delayed by a year yesterday, despite previous pledges from the Government. David Cameron described lobbying in a speech last year as “the next big scandal waiting to happen” following the furore over MPs’ expenses.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that an elite forum of property developers charged “key players in the industry” £2,500 a year to set up breakfasts, dinners and drinks with senior Conservatives. The club raises about £150,000 a year for the party. Official records show that ministers in charge of the new planning regulations have met 28 times with figures from the property industry since coming to power and have only seen environmental groups 11 times. The National Trust and other groups are campaigning to persuade the Government to rethink the changes to planning rules because of fears that they favour development. The Daily Telegraph is also running a Hands Off Our Land campaign urging ministers to rethink the reforms. The draft National Planning Policy Framework includes a new “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Sir Simon was pressed by the committee about revelations in this newspaper that developers who stood to benefit from the changes had donated millions of pounds to the Conservatives and whether this had any bearing on the planning reforms. He replied: “This process has seen the most intensive lobbying I’ve seen in a long time in this game. The sums of money involved are huge. “One only has to go through this document with a mildly sceptical eye and you will see one fingerprint after another. We are up against some very rich and powerful people.” He suggested that it was not a coincidence that a requirement forcing councils to allow new homes only to be built on previously developed brownfield sites was dropped from the draft planning documents.

This decision was “incomprehensible” because there was so much brownfield land from England’s industrial past which could be used for building. He said: “De-industrialisation has yielded so much unused land — fly over it, take a train. You have got sewerage, utilities in towns. This discussion is a distraction because the fact is there are quite a few companies who want to build on the countryside and make money.” Sir Simon suggested that the requirement to build on previously developed land was dropped because “there are smaller interests involved in brownfield development”. He added that the draft planning reforms used language that was “so vague that it is easily actionable” in courts, further tying the planning system in knots.

However, John Slaughter, director of external affairs at the Home Builders Federation who was giving evidence alongside Sir Simon, said: “The merit of having less rather than more on paper is you avoid an overly tick-box, prescriptive approach to the planning system.” He said this had contributed to the current, unwieldy situation. A 10-week consultation into the draft planning reforms closed last night, and MPs are due to be given their first opportunity to debate the proposed regulations on Thursday. Yesterday petitions urging a rethink had been signed by more than 400,000 people, including one by 210,000 National Trust supporters, and were handed to the Government.

The Daily Telegraph also disclosed last month that Greg Clark, the planning minister, had privately urged property developers to lobby the Prime Minister amid concerns that the changes could be blocked.

Last night a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “The suggestion that the draft framework was biased towards developers is factually wrong. “Councils’ plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, thereby encouraging the use of disused land for regeneration. This means brownfield sites will be prioritised, but also recognises that some restored brownfield sites also have ecological value.

Here is a short video clip which says it all! Click here >>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/Alfietheok#p/u/9/N8INkJaV78s

Today there is a significant report in the Independent on Sunday (IoS). It explains why the British Establishment is now panicing so much that they are letting us (and Scottish voters) know some of the benefits which Scots have been getting from England.
Scottish public opinion is moving towards independence with the charge being led by Alex Salmond – a dedicated Scottish nationalist with only Scottish interests at heart and no love of the English.
English public opinion too is moving towards self determination but our allotted champion and potential negotiator is David Robert Donald Cameron. He is on record saying:- “I’m a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins”. Cameron has also promised to fight any English person that wants fairness for England. His attack on “sour little Englanders” would not fill any Englishman with confidence about his willingness to fight for our interests.

We certainly do not want Cameron and his cronies to once again have an opportunity to betray English interests by giving the Scots an overly generous separation deal.
We urgently need to make a few political adjustments at home before there are any Scottish independence negotiations. We need an English government to look after the interests of England just as Scotland has their own government – a government that can be relied upon to squeeze every penny from the deal!
Here is the report:-

Westminster has no answer to the Alex Salmond effect
As the SNP prepares for its first conference as the sole governing party in Holyrood, support for independence has grown astonishingly. Matt Chorley and Brian Brady report
Sunday, 16 October 2011

Alex Salmond’s dream of inching Scotland quietly towards independence is working – and Westminster does not know what to do about it. A significant new poll reveals that since the Scottish National Party won outright control at Holyrood in May, there has been a surge in support for breaking up the union.

With Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats increasingly panicked by the seemingly inevitable march towards separation, the Scottish National Party will this week unveil plans to augment an “independence generation” in time for a referendum on a split, expected within three years.

According to a ComRes survey for The Independent on Sunday, 39 per cent of people across Britain now say Scotland should be an independent country, up from 33 per cent just five months ago. The rise in support for a split among those polled in Scotland is even more striking, up 11 points from 38 per cent to 49 per cent. Voters in every region of the UK now back Scottish independence.

This change of mood on the state of the union comes as the SNP prepares for its first party conference as Scotland’s majority government. Until May, Mr Salmond had led a minority administration, and so could blame other parties for curtailing his ambitions for Scotland.

The IoS poll findings confound strenuous efforts made by the three main parties to repel the SNP surge under Mr Salmond following the shock of his crushing victory at the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had banked on the expectation that even those voters who swept Mr Salmond to an outright majority in Edinburgh did not want full independence.

The two parties in coalition in Westminster have differing views on what to do about the “Salmond problem”: the Lib Dems’ blueprint for a federal Britain at the last general election pledged to “increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament”, but the Tories baldly pledged to “strengthen the union”. One Lib Dem cabinet minister bridles at the word “unionist” and insists that “you won’t find anyone on our side using that word”.

However, in the absence – thus far – of a coherent political or emotional plan to “sell” the union to the Scottish people, the Westminster government has devised a scheme to lay bare the price of going it alone. The new, aggressive approach to the SNP, detailed in The IoS last month, centres on a campaign to drive home the costs of independence to wavering Scottish voters. Ministers have targeted areas where Mr Salmond is seen to be vulnerable, notably on the economy and welfare, for a more rigorous examination of how an independent Scotland would stay afloat – and bankroll its huge pensions and benefits bill without raising taxes.

Ministers in London have seized the opportunity in recent weeks to warn of a looming economic catastrophe. David Mundell, the Scotland Office minister, claimed Scotland would not have survived the banking collapse had it been independent, while Nick Clegg last week said the uncertainty over the referendum was “very unsettling for the business community and [would not do] the Scottish economy any good”.

But the most drastic intervention came from Danny Alexander, whose calculations led him to warn of a “catastrophic” £122bn cost of independence. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told business leaders that Scotland’s share of the national debt last year would have been £65bn, while the cost of recapitalising the two major banking groups, RBS and HBOS, would have added a further £57bn to the burden.

That gloomy assessment is inevitably rejected by the SNP, but it has also been questioned by a number of economists. Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett, of St Andrews University, calculates that, on the basis of income over the last five years, Scotland is a net contributor to the Treasury – and that an independent Scotland would be financially better off.

“If you were to take account of what is spent in Scotland and what is raised in Scotland – and that would include North Sea oil – then in 2008 Scotland was in a mild surplus,” he said. “So you could say the subsidy is the other way around. I think critics in England have only one side of the story.”

In an attempt to force Mr Salmond on to the back foot, David Cameron and Nick Clegg want MPs in Westminster to agree to block Scottish MPs from voting on English issues before the SNP referendum. The coalition agreement pledges to establish a commission to consider whether to bar MPs from devolved nations from all but UK-wide votes, first raised by Tam Dalyell in the 1970s when he was Labour MP for West Lothian.

A senior Lib Dem source said: “The Government is confident we can get the commission out before Salmond has a referendum, but it is hard to say because Salmond has not been brave enough to come forward about when he will hold it or what the question will be, and he continues to avoid telling the Scottish people what he has planned for their future.”

The problem is the three main parties in Holyrood are not in good shape. After each suffered electoral wipeout in May’s Scottish elections, their leaders all resigned. Labour and the Tories are still to choose successors, but the extreme suggestion of one Conservative candidate, Murdo Fraser, that his party in Scotland should change its name and cut links to Westminster illustrated the establishment’s sense of helplessness in the face of the unstoppable force of Mr Salmond.

The SNP leader continues to call the shots, shaping the debate by offering a third option, a halfway house between the status quo and severing all ties; the so-called “independence lite” option would give Scotland full financial autonomy, while remaining part of the UK.

He is already paving the way for a favourable result in the referendum, confirming plans to open the vote to 16-year-olds. His plans assume younger voters are more inclined to back independence, having grown up with devolution since 1999. His chances of success are underlined by the IoS poll, which shows that backing for independence among 25- to 34-year-olds from across the UK has surged from 31 per cent in May to 42 per cent now. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, there has been an increase from 28 to 32 per cent.

At its conference in Inverness this week, the SNP will detail a steep increase in its membership, which has doubled to almost 19,000 in less than a decade – making the nationalists the biggest party in Scotland. Derek MacKay, the SNP’s business convener, said the party wanted to increase membership to 38,000, to shatter “the myth that membership of political parties is falling”. He added: “It may be true for other parties but it doesn’t apply to the SNP.”

Rising membership and a surge in the polls is the holy grail of all politicians. And yet the SNP’s resurgence has passed almost unnoticed by most outside Scotland. In Westminster, ministers privately admit to fears that the UK could be “sleepwalking” towards a break-up. Unless they can wake the nation up to the issue, their nightmare could yet come true.

Scotland vs England: subsidies and benefits

Old people
Scotland: Free personal care for all residents of nursing homes.
England: Proposal that anyone with assets worth £35,000 should pay all the costs of their care.

University tuition fees
Scotland: Free – to Scottish students. Holyrood abolished £1,000-per-year tuition fees.
England: Students pay tuition and top-up fees of up to £9,000 a year – and English students at Scottish universities are charged £1,800 for tuition. (this is wrong for next year when English Students will be required to pay up to £9,000 a year to go to Scottish Universities when French students would be free!)

Education maintenance allowances
Scotland: Up to £30 a week
England: £0

Prescription charges
Scotland: Prescription drugs free for the chronically ill from next April. Expected to be free for everyone within four years. (This is also wrong as Scots already have free prescription charges for all and the English Charge is £7.20)
England: £6.85 per item

Health checks
Scotland: Free dental checks and free eye tests for all.
England: Standard charge of £17 for dental check-ups; eye tests cost £18.85.

Transport
Scotland Over-60s travel free on buses; 16- to 18-year-olds get a third off.
England: Off-peak journeys free for over-60s and schoolchildren.

Heating for elderly
Scotland: Central heating installed for all pensioners;
England: Grants available for those on pension credits.

School dinners
Scotland: Free in the first three years of primary school.
England: Poorer children qualify for free meals – but this applies to only 16 per cent of pupils.

Yesterday Sir Simon Jenkins published another excellent comment on the future of the UK. I quote it in full below.

The one issue which he (among many!) is still confused about is that it is not the English or England whom he is meaning to criticise but rather the British and in particular the British Political Establishment who are persisting in their old imperialist ways but now are only left with poor old England to ‘lord it over’!

I would assure Sir Simon that the rump of the British state that continues to rule England with “the foolishness with which London governed its domestic empire” is now beginning to enrage even the most plegmatic Englishman! Part of that rage is in reaction to the attitude which he accurately describes thus:- “As for discussing England or Englishness, it is considered “un-British”. England is close to being a banned word at Westminster, its adherents crypto-fascists, football hooligans or, at very least, co-religionists with Celtic nationalism.”

Here is the full article:
Only England fails to foresee the demise of its first empire
Simon Jenkins
Guardian Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.30 BST

David Cameron and Alex Salmond: who is the real feartie? Photograph: Allan Milligan
Federations collapse from the stupidity of their leaders rather than the bolshevism of their members. The United Kingdom is no exception. It was pieced together in the 18th century from the half of the British Isles that the Normans had failed to conquer and assimilate. It began to disintegrate when the Irish had had enough of inept English government. Now the Scots are reaching the same conclusion, and up to a point the Welsh.

The SNP’s Alex Salmond indicated in the Guardian this week that he wants a dramatic new autonomy for Scotland: far more than the coalition’s modest fiscal reform now before parliament, which offers some discretion on income tax and the retention of stamp duty. Salmond wants a Scottish referendum on either independence or a more plausible option B for economic “devo max” or “independence lite”. This would embrace full delegation to the Scottish parliament of taxation, welfare and domestic government. London would be left with the monarchy, foreign affairs and defence, much like the Basque country. For all practical purposes, the Westminster parliament would become the English parliament.

There is a clear head of steam behind Salmond’s demands, which are spreading across the so-called Celtic fringe. The government of Northern Ireland, under the eerie power-sharing of Protestants and Catholics, is moving further from the mainland and closer to Ireland proper. That its deputy leader, Martin McGuinness, should plausibly run for president of what claims to be all Ireland is a symptom. There is talk of merging trade promotion and corporation tax on an all-Ireland basis. Wales, a country that has never ruled itself in modern times and was a reluctant devolutionist, is seeking similar fiscal autonomy to Scotland – a commission on which was conceded by the Welsh secretary, Cheryl Gillan.

The speed of this long retreat from England’s “first empire” may be slow, but the line of route is unmistakable. London’s response is manic. The union has become as drenched in political correctness as once was the empire. Like Margaret Thatcher and John Major before him, David Cameron declares his readiness to defend the union “with every single fibre that I have”. As for discussing England or Englishness, it is considered “un-British”. England is close to being a banned word at Westminster, its adherents crypto-fascists, football hooligans or, at very least, co-religionists with Celtic nationalism.

The union has long been asymmetric. It was a product of military conquest, unequal treaties and marriages of convenience. Had it not been for Edward I, Cromwell, the Victorian Church of England and Margaret Thatcher, a degree of harmonious assimilation might have been won. Yet the foolishness with which London governed its domestic empire lost and then partitioned Ireland, enraged Scotland, and roused even the somnolent Welsh from apathy. When administrative delegation became the fad at the end of the 20th century, devolution gained a traction from which it has not looked back.

The proportion of Scots supporting independence has grown to almost 40%, and the SNP’s electoral support in May was just short of 50%, crushing the Tories and Lib Dems into virtual oblivion. Salmond’s mandate north of the border is near absolute, while Cameron’s is negligible. Scottish government has taken hold. Modern Edinburgh feels more like Dublin than it does a “British” city. Yet at every turn London schemes to balk autonomy. The new fiscal devolution is no devolution at all. Danny Alexander, a Scots control freak and Lib Dem minister, is fighting to deny Scotland the tax-raising power of an English parish council. Cameron last week chided Salmond for being a “feartie”, for not putting an immediate referendum on full independence, suspecting it would fail. Yet Cameron opposes a devo- max option as that might succeed.

It is hard to see what disadvantage there is to London in devo max. It could save the London exchequer as much as £10bn a year in subsidies. With oil revenues declining there would be little compensation to the Scots there. Scottish representation in an English parliament would disappear, greatly assisting the Tories, to be replaced by some new “confederal” upper house. In return for real autonomy, London could negotiate a seriously tough deal with the Scots. So why not?

Most small new countries go through a difficult period of readjustment, but the iron law of separatism is that national pride and the exhilaration of independence trump money. Nor is that all. The evidence is that small-is-beautiful brings in confidence and investment, hence the revived economies of Slovakia, Slovenia, the Baltic states and, for a while, Ireland. Independence, in whatever degree, is a rejuvenating, galvanising force. Economists who declare that Scotland would be impoverished by autonomy see only a static, not a dynamic, model. It is the same size as Denmark and New Zealand. Why should it not be as prosperous?

The truth of this whole affair is that a mature democracy should be able to handle devolution without the present hysterics, bombast or power fixation. There are a hundred ways of forming and reforming unions, from Swiss cantons to Catalonia, from Britain’s crown dependencies to the provinces of India. Each requires different constitutional arrangements, just as the UK now needs one urgently to respond to the changes in accountability brought on by devolution. It is absurd that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should still be represented at Westminster as if they were counties of England.

The only constant in the debate is the aversion of the governing elite in London to ceding control to the Celtic periphery. England’s leaders remember nothing and learn nothing. Just as their opposition to Irish political emancipation in the 19th century made Irish separatism inevitable, so the Tory treatment of Scotland in the 1980s – “piloting” the poll tax there – gave an elixir to nationalism. The same Tory federalists who champion a UK parliament with every drop of their blood are anti-federalists in the setting of a wider Europe. Those who oppose the break-up of their union go to war for the separatist Kosovans, Bosnians and Kurds.

All unions, like all empires, have their day. Britain’s global empire has gone, to be replaced by a commonwealth. The disintegration of England’s island union began when Ireland departed a century ago and is now progressing in the same direction. Salmond’s devo max is not a rerun of Bannockburn. It is a reasonable step down the road being taken by free peoples across Europe. In responding to it, England should grow up.