Category Archives: Nationhood

SNP 2014 XMAS NOVELTIES

UK Devolution Constitution jigsaw

A deceptively difficult puzzle. Simple in principle because where the pieces should go is very obvious, but some people, and British politicians in particular, find it impossible to finish because they say they cannot to see where an English Parliament fits in.

Unhappy families

Card game for all ages. The idea is to collect a set of cards which reflect the common family situation in Scotland after the rejection of independence. Players attempt to collect sets cards with characters like Mr Angry, the SNP voter, Mrs Relieved, the Unionist, Master Thoughless, the SNP voter’s son and Miss Realist, the Unionists daughter.

Oil and Gas Tardis

Fascinating fantasy toy. Based on the idea of Dr Who’s time and space machine, the toy consists of what looks a simple like a large working scale model of a North Sea Platform. Looked at from the outside it pumps out every decreasing amounts of oil, but when you go inside the model the amount of oil pumped swells to match SNP dreams of untold oil riches.

Independence vote inflatable

An plastic toy which consists of two inflatable bulbs marked 45% and 55%. Uninflated the 55% bulb is larger than the 45% bulb, but when the bulbs are filled with hot air the 45% bulb miraculously becomes larger than the 55% one.

Call my SNP bluff

Three players recite what is claimed to be SNP policy while the other players decide which is the real SNP policy amongst the three. Warning: players must make sure the two false policies amongst the three are outlandishly improbable otherwise it will be all too easy to spot the real SNP policy. New improved version with scope for even more fantastic policies.

Conversational Gaelic DVD

Learn the language of your ancestors and find yourself part of a community of dozens of fellow speakers of our glorious tongue. Warning: due to a lack of Gaelic words for items and ideas created after 1700, speakers may find the range of conversation extremely limited.

PLUS

Clearance of out of date stock ALL AT GIVEAWAY PRICES

Make you own currency kit

Allows you to name your currency, design your own coins and banknotes, create coins (3D printer included) and banknotes and set up a central piggy bank. Warning: the money will have the same value as that used in the game monopoly. Not to be confused with real life.
IndependenceWorld

Create your own independent Scotland virtual world. The beauty of the programme is that you can make it as improbable as you want and it will still seem plausible if you are an SNP supporter. Lose yourself in pure fantasy.

SNP Sovereign Wealth Fund Moneybox

Purely decorative. The box is designed without any money cache because none will be needed. Frightening realistic.

            Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! while SNP bombast lasts

British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated 

Robert Henderson

The think-tank British Future has recently published  the report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. The report purports  to provide a blueprint for both the pros and antis in the immigration debate  to manage the subject  most effectively in public discussion.  This is not something which they achieve because they have bought into the internationalist agenda, viz: “Some three or four generations on from Windrush, it is now a settled and irreversible fact that we are a multi-ethnic society. Managing immigration effectively and fairly in the public interest  should and does matter to Britons from different ethnic backgrounds. We should be suspicious of approaches that sharply polarise British citizens along racial lines, in whatever direction”.

Nonetheless the research  does have much of interest.  One finding  is truly startling. Faced with the question  “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally”  the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report).  In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive  immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of  falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is  stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report).  The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

That only 14% support such a policy compared to the 25% who  wished for forced repatriation is striking in itself, but  it is even better for the  opponents of immigration than it looks for two reasons. First, the 14%  of those who agreed with the question will be the honest figure because to say that you want open borders carries with it no penalties from the pc police  and will gain the person brownie points amongst the politically correct elite and their axillaries. Second,  as already mentioned, the 25% of those wanting forced repatriation of all immigrants will understate the true position because a significant proportion of those questioned with be lying out of fear.

The report also shows that older voters are more likely to be those who are most strongly opposed to immigration (P11 of the report).  That is important because older voters are the most likely to vote.

Taking all that into account  it is reasonable to assume that a referendum with the question “Do you wish to end mass immigration?”  would result in a solid probably overwhelming YES vote.

These facts  should persuade politicians that they would risk nothing if they move much further to restrict  immigration than they have already done and in so doing would  gain  considerable  extra electoral support.

This may well happen. Public rhetoric  about immigration is rapidly hardening There will come a tipping point where  the rhetoric  has departed so far from the politically correct position that serious  action to restrict immigration will occur because the stretch between rhetoric and action will  become too great to sustain in a society where governments are elected.

A party political  bidding process on the  subject of immigration is already taking place  and there will come a point where serious action has to follow  or there will be a very real chance that either one or more of the mainstream parties will become irrelevant and be superseded, or members of the mainstream parties will wrest control of these parties from their pc indoctrinated leadership  and adopt a policy on immigration  closer to what the public wants.

The other important effect of greater political honesty in political utterances about immigration is that it makes  it much easier for people generally to speak openly about their feelings on the subject and to lobby for radical action.   In  turn this will feed the desire of politicians to gain electoral credibility by being  ever former in their immigration policies.  Indeed, the only reason that the present immigration has been allowed to develop is because the subject has been effectively wiped off the public debate agenda since the1970s.

A very good way of explaining the unfairness at the heart of the UK?



Payment for running siblings’ new cars


Back in 1999, the parents of three children bought two of their offspring, a new BMW, each. The third received nothing.

For the next 15 years, they did not acknowledge their third child’s existence although they forced him to pay the running costs of his siblings’ new cars.

However, after those 15 years, circumstances forced them to recant slightly and they bought their third child a second-hand moped. He still had to pay his siblings’ running-costs.

By coincidence in 1999, the British government granted two of the three countries of Great Britain (Scotland and Wales) their own parliaments and with them, selfdetermination. The third, (England) received nothing. For the next 15 years, the British government refused to acknowledge England’s existence, although they forced her citizens to pay the running-costs of these Scottish and Welsh parliaments, enabling the Scots and Welsh to enjoy freebies which they were denied.

However, after those 15 years, a Scottish independence referendum forced them to recant slightly, and the people of England have been told we’re going to get EVEL (English votes on English laws). We will continue to be made to pay the Scots’ and Welsh running costs.

We weren’t asked. The Scots and the Welsh got a referendum – we didn’t. The Scots and the Welsh each got a brand new BMW. Now, after 15 years, we’re being told we can have a second-hand moped – “take it or leave it”.

Clive Lavelle Weston-super-Mare English Democrats

England could be Balkanised by stealth after the 2015 General Election

Robert Henderson

It is quite clear what the strategy is of all Westminster Parties apart from the Tories and Ukip : they are desperate to Balkanise England.  English votes for English laws (EVEL) will not work for practical reasons such as who decides on what is an exclusively English law and the differing  powers granted to the Scottish parliament and  Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. But it is probably necessary for it to be tried and to be seen to fail before the only honest constitutional solution – an English Parliament – is accepted  by the Tories.

The danger is that the next Westminster Parliament will result in either a Labour majority government because of the scandalous way constituency sizes are weighted to favour Labour and the fact that the Labour vote is more concentrated in certain constituencies than that of other parties or , much more probably,  a motley coalition between Labour, the LibDems, the Greens and most poisonously the SNP,  who could well return  20-30 MPs to the Commons.

We could  find after the general election that a Labour government or a Labour led coalition would not only deny England EVEL,  but would enforce some form a devolution upon England, most probably by devolving significant powers to greater metropolitan areas such as Greater Manchester, which would effectively be English regional government by subterfuge. This increase in the complexity of the allocation of powers in England would emasculate  any future attempt at EVEL and  by leaving as little as possible  of English administration at the Westminster level,  would make an English parliament an ever more remote possibility because the less power it would have the less press there would be for a parliament.

Once powers had been devolved within England the new regional political classes they would spawn would provide a serious barrier to taking back their powers and returning them to Westminster. Such regional powers would also set the parts of a balkanised England against one another and the populations of the various regions would  in time begin to defend what their region has rather than considering the national English interest.

The Westminster Parties which want England to be Balkanised do so in the knowledge that there is absolutely no appetite for  a developed England, a fact recently confirmed by an Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR)  report  The Future of England Survey 2014.  Their motives are driven by crude party advantage in the case of Labour and the Libdems which both rely heavily on Scottish and Welsh MPs to make up their numbers in the House of Commons and a desire  by all the pro Balkanisation of England supporters to  hamstring England to prevent her looking out for her own interests – which would include stopping the English subsidy to the rest of the UK – because they fear that it would  be greatly to their disadvantage.  There is also more than a little sheer anti-English feeling as is exemplified even in their leading politicians who in the case of  those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland never cease to bang the victimhood drum over the wicked English colonial overlord.

Some MPs sitting for English seats  join in the insult of the English, most notably the senior Labour politician Jack Straw who was Home Secretary during the Blair Government. On a BBC programme  in 2000 Straw  stated that the English are “potentially very aggressive, very violent” that England had used their  “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”

If anti-English Balkanising government is elected to Westminster next year  without a majority of English seats there would be a dangerous constitutional situation where the English are effectively being misgoverned according to the dictates of the Celtic Fringe MPs. That could be the point where the patience of the English public runs out.

The BBC and “coloured  players“

Robert Henderson

Twice in the past few days  two  interviewees from the football world  on Radio 5 have used the word coloured in connection with  black players  when discussing the possible introduction of the Rooney Rule into English football. The so-called rule comes from America and  in the English context makes  compulsory the interviewing of at least one black candidate where a managerial  or head coach position in a professional football  team is to be filled.

The first occasion was by the Wigan FC owner Dave Wheelan  (3 Oct),  who repeatedly referred to “coloured players” .  Nothing was said during the interview, but immediately it was over the presenter  in best politically correct fashion said in the peculiarly noxious tones of a white liberal affecting outrage that they were apologising for language in the interview “which listeners may have found offensive”.  Interestingly, the BBC  written item which referred to Whelan’s appearance discussing the Rooney Rule subject did not mention that he had used the phrase “black footballers”.

On the Stephen Nolan programme (4 Oct) the very experienced English football manager Dave Bassett  and the black basketball player  John Amaechi   engaged in an extended row over the same phrase  coloured footballers,  plus variations on it (go into to the recording at 35 minutes) .  Amaechi  jumped in after the first two uses  of “coloured players” with ”This is 2014 and I’m listening to someone talk about  using coloured players. For the love of God are  you kidding me?”.

Judged by his  frequent  British media appearances Amaechi  is a naturally petulant and childishly abusive personality. He  proceeded to try  to patronise Bassett, a working-class man without much education, by referring to his (Amaechi’s)  academic qualification in psychology and saying  with heavy sarcasm that he might just have the edge over Bassett when it came to judging human behaviour. This merely made Amaechi look like an unpleasant boor at best and a deeply insecure man at worst.  Amaechi added to this bad impression by constantly insulting Bassett by objecting to any attempt by Bassett to get a word in edgeways by shrieking something along the lines of don’t interrupt me, it’s rude.

The presenter Nolan made precious little attempt to restrain Amaechi’s rudeness or give Bassett a fair chance to speak. In addition, he backed up  up Amaechi by several times saying to Bassett that the word coloured in this  context was “inappropriate” . So much for BBC staff not expressing opinions.

Greatly to his credit Bassett stuck to his guns and refused to apologise , during his time on air or, according to Nolan, afterwards – Nolan said that Bassett had stood by his use of the phrase after he left the airwaves.  Whilst on air he made the very good point that managers and coaches in English professional football frequently did not represent the percentage of the players involved from various groups such as the Northern Irish or Welsh. He also opposed the introduction of the Rooney Rule.

The attempt to stop the use of coloured is a prime example of how racial, ethnic and other minorities such as gays try to exert power generally over society .  This is both sinister  – control of language is the tool of dictators – and  unreasonable, because while  a group may call themselves whatever they choose , they  have no moral right to impose their chosen  term  upon those outside of the group. The moral abuse caused by imposition  becomes  especially  sharp where there is a different word used by the population in which they live which is not abusive.  That is the case with coloured.  The term was for more than a century  the polite term for blacks.   The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People was founded in 1909 in the USA and continues with the title today.   There is little serious complaint about the use of coloured in the title of that  organisation, while the  mixed race (white/black mixture)  population of South Africa is still called coloured.  Ironically, the term black  occupied the same position as coloured does now fifty years ago.

On the Rooney Rule question, it would be just another granting of privilege to a racial minority. Nor is  it clear who would count as black in these circumstances. How black would you have to be? One half black, quarter black , one eighth black?  What of someone with one parent who has black ancestry who looks white? (genetics can produce some unexpected results). Would every racial and ethnic minority be  allowed  climb on the bandwagon?

On a purely practical level where would  the large number of black and Asian qualified managers and senior coaches required to meet the  interviewee quota come from? Would it be a very small group who went from interview to interview?  After all, if there are only two black managers in the top 92 English league clubs , who exactly could be meaningfully called for interview? By definition  these would all be inexperienced  so how on earth could many if any be considered for clubs in the  tope toe English divisions, the Premier  League and the Championship?   Even at the level of formal coaching qualifications there would be a problem because few black  or Asian footballers  are taking their advanced coaching badges.

The group which is scandalously under represented in football both as players and managers is of course the English, who have been relentlessly squeezed out since the formation of the Premier League in 1992 and foreign owners, managers and players flooded in as English League  football became ever more lucrative and prestigious.  The result is that the English have become second-class citizens in their own professional football. That is the  inequality which needs addressing.

NB If you want to catch the Nolan programme recording , do so quickly because it will only be available on IPlayer at  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04jj29l   fro another 4 days.

Devolution and an in-out referendum Part 2 – The hard facts to be put before the Celts

Devolution and an in-out referendum

Part 2 – The hard facts to be put before the Celts

Posted on October 5, 2014 by Robert Henderson in Editorial, Elections // 1 Comment
In part 1 I looked at the UK electoral arithmetic which suggested that England might well  vote to leave the EU  while one or more of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would vote to stay in the EU.  I then proposed a strategy to diminish the stay-in vote in the Celtic nations. This was to bring home the realities of life in and outside the UK for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
The primary matters the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish should be reminded of before they vote to leave the UK are:
  1. Wales and Northern Ireland are economic basket-cases which rely heavily on English taxpayers to fund their public expenditure. To lose that subsidy would cripple them both. Nor would they get anything like as much extra funding from the EU – assuming it would have them as members – as they would lose from the end of the English subsidy.
Scotland is in a better position because it is larger and has, for the present at least, significant oil revenues.  But it is a very narrow economy relying very heavily on public service employment – a significant part of which deals with the administration of English public service matters – while the private business side of is largely comprised of oil and gas, whiskey, food, tourism and financial services.
The figures below are the latest official estimates of the tax raised in each of the four home countries to the end of the 2012/13 financial year. These figures should not be treated as exact to the last million because there are difficulties in allocating revenue to particular parts of the UK, for example, with corporation tax, but they are broadly indicative of what each country collects in tax.  I give two sets of figures to show the differences when oil and gas is allocated on a geographical and a population basis.
Table 1 Total HMRC Receipts (Geographical Split of North Sea Revenues), £m
2012-13
UK                England    %           Wales      %       Scotland   %        Northern Ireland %
469,777   400,659 85.3%    16,337 3.5%   42,415 9.0%       10,331   2.6%
Table 2 Total HMRC Receipts (Population Split of North Sea Revenues), £m
469,777   404,760 86.2%    16,652 3.5%   37,811 8.0%        10,518    2.6%
Compare this with public spending for each of three small home countries in the calendar year 2013 (I was unable to find expenditure figures for the financial year but they would be little different) :
Scotland      £53.9 billion  – difference  of £12 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
Wales            £29.8 billion   – difference of £13 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
Ireland         £19.8 billion   – difference of £9 billion approx. between tax raised and money spent
NB differences between tax raised and money spent are based on Table 1 figures which give the most favourable interpretation of Scotland’s tax position.
The three smaller countries are accumulating debt at a much greater rate than England.  In addition, small countries which go independent would find raising the money to meet their overspends would be much more expensive than the cost of financing the debt as part of the UK
  1. The vast majority of their trade is with England. Barriers created by England’s departure from the EU could have very serious economic consequences any of other home countries remained within the EU.
  2. Much of what they export to countries outside the EU has to pass through England.
  3. All three countries would be net takers from the EU budget not contributors. The EU is unlikely to welcome with open arms an additional three small pensioner nations. There would be no guarantee that the EU would accept any or all of them as members, but even if it did the terms they would have to accept would be far more onerous and intrusive than they experience now. In particular, they would almost certainly have to join the Euro as this is a condition for all new members.
  4. An England or a reduced UK outside the EU would have to impose physical border controls because any part of the UK which seceded and joined the EU would be committed to the free movement of labour within the EU (more exactly the European Economic Area – EEA). That would mean any number of immigrants from the EEA would be able to enter either England or a reduced UK via whichever part(s) of the UK had seceded and joined the EU.
  5. Being part of the UK gives the smaller home countries great security because the UK still has considerable military clout – ultimately Britain is protected by nuclear weapons – and the size of the population (around 62 million and rising) is sufficient in itself to give any aggressor pause for thought. The proposal for armed forces made in the SNP sponsored White Paper on independence recommended armed forces of 10,000 regulars to start with rising to 15,000 if circumstances permitted.   That would be laughable as a defence force for a country the size of Scotland which has huge swathes of land with very few people on that land.  An independent Wales and N Ireland would be even worse off militarily.
  6. They could not expect to walk away from the Union without taking on a share of the UK national debt and of taxpayer funded pension liabilities proportional to their population, have a currency union to share the Pound, have UK government contracts for anything or retain the jobs exported from England to do administrative public sector work  for England, for example, much of the English welfare administration is dealt with in Scotland.
If this is done, with any luck the enthusiasm for leaving the UK to join the EU if England or England plus one or more of the other home countries has voted to leave the EU will diminish sufficiently to make a vote to remain in the EU unlike or at least reduce the vote to stay in to level where there is not an overwhelming vote to either stay in or leave.

Devolution and an EU In/Out Referendum – The Electoral Arithmetic – UKIP Daily

Devolution and an EU In/Out Referendum – The Electoral Arithmetic

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Robert Henderson in Editorial, Elections // 2 Comments
Little attention is being given to the implications for an IN/OUT referendum of the ever more potent devolution being granted within the UK.  A policy needs to be developed because there is every chance that England will vote to leave the EU while one or more of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and probably all three) will vote to stay in. That would produce a serious constitutional crisis especially if the three small home countries get much greater powers than they have now.
An England voting to leave and at least one of Scotland, Wales and N Ireland voting to stay is plausible.   This could happen even with a fairly small majority in England voting to leave.   How would the electoral arithmetic stack up?  The official number of registered electors qualified to vote inParliamentary elections are
  • England – 38,837,300, a rise of 0.5 per cent
  • Wales – 2,301,100, a rise of 0.1 per cent
  • Scotland – 3,985,300, a rise of 1.1 per cent
  • Northern Ireland – 1,230,200, a rise of 1.4 per cent
Assuming for the sake of simplifying the example there is a 100% turnout, then 23,176,951 votes would be needed for a vote to leave the EU.  If England voted by 60% to leave that would produce 23,302,380 votes to leave, more than would be required for a simple majority.
But that is obviously not the full picture. There would be a substantial vote to leave in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The combined electorate of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland in 2012 was 7,516,600.  If 70% of those voted to remain in the EU, that would make only 5,261,620 votes.   There would be 2,254,980 votes to leave.  If England voted 54% to leave (20, 972,142 votes) the votes to leave in the whole of the UK would be   23,227, 122 (20, 972,142 +2,254,980), enough to win the referendum.
(Editor: The way to test this is with a sensitivity analysis, and we add the table below to the article:
Referendum Sensitivity
This shows that if the Celtic vote for OUT is bolstered to 40%, the English vote could go as low as 52%)
Of course that is not how the vote would be in the real world. The turnout would be nowhere near 100% although it might well be over eighty per cent if the Scottish referendum is a guide.   How   Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would vote is of course uncertain, but I have allotted such a generous proportion of the vote to the stay in side in those countries that it is unlikely I have seriously over-estimated the vote to leave.  What the example does show is that under any likely voting circumstances there would not need to be a very strong YES to leaving vote in England to override a very strong vote to remain part of the EU in one or more of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If there was such an unbalanced result, that is with England voting to leave and the other three countries voting to stay or even if just one of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voting to remain in the EU, this would ostensibly produce a potentially incendiary situation, especially if  Westminster politicians keep on grovelling to the Celtic Fringe as they did during the Scottish independence referendum., a practice which  grossly inflated the idea of  Scotland’s ability to be independent without any pain in many Scots’ minds.
I said an ostensibly incendiary situation because in reality there would be little appetite to leave the UK if the hard truths of what leaving the UK and joining the EU would mean were placed in front of voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  England or England plus one or two of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be a completely different kettle of fish compared with Scotland leaving the UK with the rUK still in the EU. If any of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland wished to leave the UK they would  and join the EU with the rest of the UK or just England outside of the EU they would be faced with an England or a remnant UK state which had regained its freedom of action and would not be bound by EU law.
The strategy of those in who want the UK to leave the EU should be to reduce the idea amongst voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that leaving the UK and joining the EU after a UK vote to leave has taken place would not be an easy choice.  What is required is a pre-emptive strike before the referendum pointing out to voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the realities of their relationship with the EU and the UK in the hope of diminishing the vote to stay in those countries.
This is something which should have been done during the Scottish referendum.  Indeed, the refusal of the Better Together side of the argument to point out these realities was one of the prime reasons for the NO vote not being much larger than it was, handsome as that result was.  The unionist side generally was also deeply patronising to the Scots with their line that only Scots could have a say in the debate and that the rest of the union had to keep quiet for fear of upsetting the Scots and driving them to a YES vote.  It implied that Scots are something less than adults who could not either bear contrary views or have the wit to listen to hard facts about reality.
There will be a second part to this article: The hard facts to put before the Celts.

The persecution of Emma West continues

Robert Henderson

Emma West  was arrested in November 2011 after she protested about immigration whilst travelling on a bus. Her protest was captured on video and uploaded to YouTube as well as being copied by many national media outlets. The video was  viewed millions of times.

Following the upload of the video Emma was arrested, held in the UK’s highest security prison for women , released and then subjected to a year and a half’s intimidation by the state as the powers-that-be desperately tried to get her to plead guilty to charges relating to racially motivated serious crimes (racially aggravated intentional harassment and racially aggravated assault)  which would have almost certainly sent her to prison. Eventually, worn down by the stress she pleaded guilty to the  lesser charge of racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.

I say Emma’s outburst was a protest against immigration because that is precisely what it is. Here are some of her comments:

She says: “What’s this country coming too?

“A load of black people and and load of f***ing Polish.”

One commuter challenges West, who rounds on him telling him: “You aren’t English”, to which he replies “No, I’m not”

She then scans the tram, pointing out people one-by-one, saying: “You ain’t English, you ain’t English, None of you are f***ing English.

“Get back to your own f***ing countries.”

“Britain is nothing now, Britain is f***k all.

“My Britain is f**k all now.”

You can argue that is foulmouthed,  but you cannot argue it is anything but a protest against immigration. In fact, it is the most grass-root form of political protest there is, namely, directly engaging with the effects of policy.

Emma lives in a country which has been made unrecognisable by the permitting of mass immigration for over sixty years. Neither Emma nor any other native English man or woman (or Briton come to that) has had any say in this invasion of the country. This most fundamental act of treason has been committed by generations of British politicians who to date have got away with their crime. But to continue to get away with the crime the guilty men and women need to suppress public protest against what they have done.  That is why the authorities were so desperate to get to plead guilty. She was a refusnik and they could not let that pass.  That she resorted to foul language in her frustration is entirely understandable.

But those with power were not satisfied simply with her criminal conviction. Emma has now had her livelihood as a dental nurse taken away by the General Medical Council with this preternaturally smug judgement:

A [Dental Council] spokeswoman said: “Her conduct was truly appalling.

“It clearly has the capacity to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public confidence in its standards.

“Furthermore, her violent and abusive conduct would demonstrate a real risk to the safety of patients.

“In relation to her racially aggravated offence, this was committed in a public setting and received further public exposure, as a person had uploaded the video clip to the internet which has been viewed extensively.”

So there you have it, political correctness can not only send you into the clutches of the law but take your means of living away.

For the full story of Emma West’ persecution see

The oppression of Emma West : the politically correct end game plays out

Posted on July 2, 2013by

Robert Henderson In November 2011 Emma West was arrested  and subsequently charged for a racially aggravated public order offence (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state/). The charges concerned her  public denunciation of the effects of mass immigration whilst on a tram in Croydon,  a suburb … Continue reading →

Posted in Culture, Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 61 Comments | Edit

Emma West and the State – The State has its way (sort of)

Posted on June 5, 2013by

Robert Henderson Emma West has finally been worn down. Eighteen months after she was charged with racially aggravated intentional harassment and racially aggravated assault , she has agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of racially aggravated harassment, alarm … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 21 Comments | Edit

Emma West’s trial scheduled for the sixth time

Posted on April 10, 2013by

Robert Henderson Emma West was due to stand trial at Croydon Crown Court for  two racially aggravated public order offences  arising from her complaint about  mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram  in November 2011 . The … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , ,, | 36 Comments | Edit

Emma West trial scheduled for the fifth time

Posted on March 13, 2013by

Robert Henderson A fifth, yes that’s fifth,  date for the start of Emma West’s trial on criminal charges arising from her complaint about  mass immigration and its effects made on a Croydon tram  in November 2011 has been set  for  … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood | Tagged , , , , , , ,, | 28 Comments | Edit

What has happened to Emma West?

Posted on January 8, 2013by

Robert Henderson It is now 14 months since Emma West was charged with racially aggravated public order offences after she got into an argument on a tram which led her to make loud complaint about the effects of mass immigration. … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 31 Comments | Edit

Emma West trial delayed for the third time

Posted on September 8, 2012by

Robert Henderson The trial of Emma West on racially aggravated public order offences has been delayed for the third time ( http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Emma-West-trial-adjourned-time/story-16820636-detail/story.html ).  No further date has been set.   The trial was originally scheduled for June, then July and finally September … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments | Edit

Emma West has her trial delayed yet again

Posted on July 27, 2012by

The trial of Emma West on two racially aggravated public order offences has been put back to 5 September to allow further medical reports (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Trial-alleged-YouTube-tram-racist-Emma-West-moved/story-16543355-detail/story.html).  Her trial was meant to take place on 17th July but a request for … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , ,, , | 12 Comments | Edit

Courage is the best defence against charges of racism

Posted on June 12, 2012by

Robert Henderson The trial of Emma West on two racially aggravated public order charges which was scheduled for 11 June has been postponed until 16 July to enable further psychiatric reports to be prepared. (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Emma-West-race-rant-trial-moved-July/story-16346869-detail/story.html). As Miss West was charged … Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments | Edit

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 3

Posted on January 4, 2012by

Robert Henderson Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3rd January.  She  will stand trial  on  two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court  – Croydon Crown Court –  … Continue reading →

Posted in Anglophobia, Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , , ,, , , | 12 Comments | Edit

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 2

Posted on December 7, 2011by

Robert Henderson Emma West has been remanded in custody until 3rd of January when she will appear at Croydon Crown Court (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tram-race-rant-woman-court-052333359.html).  By 3rd January she will in, effect , have served a custodial sentence of 37 days,  [RH She was … Continue reading →

Posted in Anglophobia, Culture, Immigration, Nationhood, Politics | Tagged , , , ,, , , | 23 Comments | Edit

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state

Posted on December 1, 2011by

Emma West of New Addington, London has been arrested and placed in “protective custody” following the publication on YouTube of  a two minute 25 second  recording labelled by the YouTube poster as “Racist British Woman on the Tram goes CRAZY …Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Nationhood | Tagged , , , , , , ,, | 39 Comments | Edit

The Scottish referendum and the accidental emergence of the English voice

Robert Henderson

The outcome of the Scottish independence referendum has  resulted in the breaking of a particularly effective omerta within the British political classes, namely, that there should be no acknowledgement of the wilful damage done to English interests by the devolution settlement of the late 1990s which has excluded her from having a national political voice while Scotland, Wales and Northern  Ireland were given such a voice and ever increasing devolved powers.

Having denied England her due for 16 years the Tory Party has suddenly embraced the idea constitutional equality with the rest of the UK with the necessary changes being made in tandem with the new powers so recklessly promised by Gordon Brown during the last days of the Referendum campaign.    No matter that the Tory Party has had this sudden conversion to being the upholder of English interests because it is a way of marginalising the Labour Party through both threatening to remove the influence of its many non-English seat MPs; no matter that so far all that is proposed is English votes for English laws rather than an English Parliament; no matter that the Labour and LibDem leaders have rejected the idea. What matters is that the English devolution train has started to move and once moving it will be very difficult to stop.

Cameron’s “solution” to the constitutional imbalance

The morning after the NO in the Scottish independence  referendum vote David  Cameron  proposed  this:

“Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.

The rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced as well.

It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom.

In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh Government and Assembly more powers.

And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations.

In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.

I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England.

We have heard the voice of Scotland – and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard.

The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question –requires a decisive answer.

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.”

Whether Cameron could deliver much of this in the seven months before the General Election is highly dubious, both on the  grounds of time and the difficulty of getting agreement with the other major Westminster parties . Labour leader Ed Miliband has already refused to back the idea of linking English constitutional reform to the granting of extra powers to Scotland. This is for a crude political interest   reason: without Labour MPs from outside of England the Labour Party would have no chance of forming a government in England for the foreseeable future.  LibDem leader Nick Clegg has also refused to back Cameron’s proposal,  but has said he would support the formation of an English Grand Committee to scrutinise and amend English-only legislation. However,  this would still leave the UK parliament as it is present constructed with the final say which would include MPs for seats outside of England.

But  even if  Cameron  could  do it in the time and the other major Westminster Parties agreed to his proposal, it is difficult to see how Cameron could achieve what he wants – an equality of control over  national affairs in the four Home Countries – because he is determined not to have an English Parliament.  English votes for English laws suggests he wants to have only  MPs for English seats voting  on issues  which affect only England. (It is not clear at  present whether Cameron would exclude Welsh and Northern  Irish MPs . If  they were not excluded the problem of non-English MPs voting on English issues would remain.  But there is a difficulty in doing this insofar as Welsh and Northern Irish devolved powers are less than those already in Scotland and even more inferior to a Scotland with the proposed new powers.  The solution to this is to give all four Home Nations equal devolved powers.)

But excluding non-English seat MPs from voting on English issues would not  entirely  solve the problem.  There would still be the question of who makes the policy on which the MPs vote.  It is easy to see how a situation could arise where a Labour government  or a coalition  government with MPs drawn  from non-English seats  could have an overall majority in the Commons  but be in the minority amongst English MPs.   If that was the case it would not be for such a government to make laws for England because it would be non-English MPs making English policy.  English laws would have to be formulated and developed  by an executive drawn only from English-seat MPs. That would  mean   two executives in the Commons, one dealing with English affairs and one with all other affairs.  It would be unworkable.    If there was both an English Parliament and a Federal government the problem would not exists because the two executives would be clearly delineated and their areas of responsibility  obvious.

Consider also the position at a UK wide general election.  How would those standing for seats outside of England campaign? If such MPs were allowed to be   part of the policy making process  for English-only legislation but were not allowed to vote,  what exactly would they put in their election manifestoes about such a  situation? Similarly what would the parties they represent put in the Party manifesto?  If MPs outside of England were excluded from both voting and  policy making on English-only matters  would the Party manifestoes for seats outside of England  have to exclude any mention of what the Party manifesto for England said on English-only issues?

There is also a serious procedural  problem with English votes for English laws, namely, who would decide what is an English only issue. It has been suggested the Speaker would make the decision. That would place a dangerously large  amount of political power and influence in the hands of one man. (Imagine the present speaker John Bercow making such a decision  when faced with a Tory government).  But whatever the arrangements for making such a decision  there would be immense opportunity for dissension and many seemingly English-only issues could end up classified as not qualifying as English-only.  Indeed, while the Barnet Formula remains any English legislation with spending implications could be argued  to not be English-only because what England gets to spend is linked to what Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive: England gets more for the NHS, the other home nations gets a proportionate boost to their spending . That difficulty could be removed by abolishing the Barnett Formula but that would cause a great uproar amongst the Celtic Fringe.  There would also be the a problem if the Welsh and  Northern Irish assemblies were not given the same powers as the  Scottish parliament because  that would also cause great confusion and argument.

But the question of English representation goes beyond mere numbers. Even if  a Westminster government  is formed with a majority of English MPs, the fact that MPs from outside of  England would still be able to both vote on and help frame  English-only legislation  and policy would colour that legislation and policy  because personal relationships between politicians of the governing party would compromise  the desire of the government to act in England’s interests. (The smaller the government majority  amongst English MPs  the more influence non-English seat MPs would be able to exert because their voice would be louder and the Government would  always be afraid of a general rebellion by the non-English seat MPs if non-English  interests were  not being pandered to. With a government with a tiny majority of English seats this could well result in defeat for the government.)

If the Westminster government with a majority English-seat MPs  was formed by a party with strong representation in one or more of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, the temptation not to act solely in English interests would be strong because of the fear that what was done at Westminster could damage their standing in the other Home Countries.   A coalition with an English-seat majority  which excluded the Tory  Party would be particularly difficult  for England because it would have non-English seat MPs  from different parties pulling in different directions.

The plain truth is that the only practical  and honest solution to the constitutional mess  is an English Parliament. It would allow an exact equality of powers and national focus to be granted to each of the Home Nations. The Parliament  could be created very simply at little or no additional cost: only MPs for English seats would be elected to the  House of Commons which would become what it was originally, an English institution.

An English Parliament would remove not only the practical difficulties of  deciding who should make policy to put before  the Commons and  what legislation was to be dealt with only by English seat MPs, it would force England’s representatives to concentrate on England’s interests first, second and last.

The UK federal Parliament could be created simply by forming it of the MPs of the four Home Country national Parliaments.    With federal matters restricted to a handful of important issues – defence, macro fiscal policy, foreign affairs, homeland security and suchlike – the federal parliament would not have that much to do. This would allow it to  meet at Westminster if a physical gathering is required or it could be conducted through linking the four national parliaments via the Web  The federal government would be formed as the UK government is now, on a majority drawn from the four Home Country parliaments.

The attempts to fudge the English constitutional question

There are  already frantic elite  attempts to fudge the English question  in play. As soon as the NO vote was certain the mainstream media and Libdem and Labour politicians started pushing the idea of devolving the powers Scotland had to either English regions or councils. The BBC was particularly assiduous in this respect with Radio 5 who started their propagandising for devolution which would deny England a Parliament as soon as it became clear in the early hours of the morning  that the NO vote would win.

Devolving to English regions or even councils  the powers enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament after the new powers are added  manifestly cannot achieve  what Cameron wants, namely, equality of treatment for England.  For example, Scotland is to have new tax raising powers over income tax. If  such powers were given to English regions or large conurbations , this would simply result in a hideously complex post-code lottery which would set one area against another.   But it would not simply be  a matter of setting one area against another which would be an ill consequence of such devolution. Imagine what would happen if  one area suffered a severe shortfall in revenue under such a tax regime?  This could happen because they set the rates too low to make up for any new taxpaying businesses or individuals they attracted or because there was a flight from higher  tax areas. Would what remained of central government in the UK  be willing to stand idly by and allow vital public services in the afflicted area  to fall into disuse? Most probably not, but that would raise a problem: if much of the revenue raising had  been devolved where exactly would the money come from to bail the at risk region or council out?   But even if central government did have the funds,  it would be politically toxic for them to be handing out money to a region or city which could not fund its public services because it had set its local tax rates too low. Solvent regions or cities would be up in arms. There would be plenty of issues such as this. The whole thing would be an administrative mess of heroic proportions.

Regional assemblies would not work  even if their remit was restricted to genuinely local matters and their taxation powers remained small. . This is because there are no English regions which have anything approaching  as strong an identity as any of the home  nations. Most  of England has no strong regional identity.  Even the North East and Cornwall – the two English areas most commonly touted as having a strong regional identity – would be unsuitable.  The North East is comprised of Northumberland and  Durham but that has strong antipathies within it, for example, the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland.   Cornwall is too small to stand on its own – with much of its population not being Cornish but incomers  – and  a South West Region comprising Cornwall, Devon and Somerset  would have no natural unity. The Northwest would include Manchester and Liverpool, two major  cities with little love for one another.

At the level of devolution to towns and cities, this would raise the problem of what to do with the considerable stretches of England without large cities or substantial towns.  That would rule out extending the powers of large cities and towns to the surrounding countryside in much of England..

What needs to be done now?

Although English votes for English laws on policies developed by MPs from England and put forward by an English executive  would be very messy and ultimately impractical, the adoption of the scheme   could be used as a springboard to an English parliament. This would be partly because the public would see that it was not working efficiently or fairly and partly because the habit of publicly speaking about English interests and English constitutional circumstances would have been formed. That would embolden politicians and the mainstream media to advocate an English parliament.   If it was only English votes for English laws with MPs outside of  England still forming part of the policy determining  group for the legislation for England,  this clear evidence of  blatant inequality between England and the other Home Nations  would boost demand for  English votes for English laws to be scrapped and English Parliament put in its place.

The danger for England is that she will end up  without anything which goes anyway towards remedying the disadvantage she is presently under.  Nothing will be decided before the 2015 General Election and if Labour form a government, whether on their own or in coalition with the parties other than the Tories, the chances of English votes for English laws getting off the ground is remote. In such circumstances the issue of English devolution would be likely to be kicked into the long grass with things such as a constitutional convention and the devolution of some unimportant extra powers to the cities. I doubt whether regional assemblies would be attempted because of the resounding rejection  of an assembly in the North East in 2004. It would also look like treating England as a second class citizen.  The idea of devolving important powers such as those  granted to Scotland to cities  would be a non-starter .

If the Tories have a modicum of sense they will go to the country on a platform of  English rights. Ideally, this should  contain support for an English Parliament , but even English votes for English laws would have considerable traction with English electors because at long last there would be a major Party which appeared to be “speaking for England”.  Such a platform would place both Labour and the LibDems in an impossible electoral position because a refusal to allow the English to have the same powers as the Scots, Welsh and Irish would be self-evidently unreasonable.

How Scotland said no

Robert Henderson

Great is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the independence side as they try to come to terms with rejection in the Scottish referendum. The  Scots National Party (SNP) politicians and much of the mainstream media are trying to portray this as a  great result because  1.6 million voted to leave the UK, with many  of this motley crew claiming that the result  gave the independence supporting politicians a mandate to bargain for greater devolved powers. But try as they may there is no disguising  that a  55% to 45%  result is a  thumping win for the Unionist side in a two horse race.

The win is even better than it looks because of the grotesque  ineptitude of Cameron and the Better Together side  which handed Salmond a platter full of goodies to boost the pro-independence vote.

Cameron spinelessly  accepted  these  conditions when he signed the Edinburgh Agreement  with  Salmond :

  1. A referendum which excluded the rest of the UK.
  2. The referendum to go forward without the terms of separation being agreed. (The terms should have been  agreed and put to the rest of the UK in a referendum before being put to the Scots).
  3. A simple majority to decide the referendum rather than a super-majority, for example, 70% of those voting or 60% of the entire electorate.  Such super-majorities are reasonable when the matter at issue is of such profound importance.
  4. The referendum to be held in 2014 which is the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. This allowed Salmond to tie the anniversary celebrations to the referendum. In addition, if there had been a YES vote,  holding the referendum in 2014 would have created immense practical problems because , unless Parliament extended its life, there could only be seven months  after the referendum  before a general election had to be  held.  After a YES vote  that election could easily have returned a House of Commons which was very  different from the present one. There could have been a  Commons  with a Labour government or Labour in coalition with parties other than the Tories  with  very different ideas  to the  present coalition government of what should be agreed with Holyrood.  It is also plausible that the Tories could have come back with a solid majority  if the electorate thought they were the party least likely to give too much to Scotland.
  5. The voting age of the electorate for the referendum being reduced to 16.
  6. The Scottish parliament to frame the referendum question . The question “Should Scotland be an independent country? was clearly biased because voters had to mark the ballot paper YES or NO . Yes is an hooray word and NO a boo word . It was an elementary framing error.  The question should have been put in such a way as to avoid YES and NO, for example, with two questions such as “Do you want Scotland to be part of the UK?” and Do you want Scotland to leave the UK?”  with a blank box beside both in which a cross could be put.  (It tells you a great deal about Electoral Commission that it passed the wording of such an obviously flawed question)

Those are the strategic mistakes.  There was also many errors of presentation:

  1. Cameron began the process by going to Edinburgh to conclude what became the Edinburgh Agreement. This was a mistake because a politician who goes to  treat on another politician’s home ground will be seen as subordinate.  It  was particularly absurd behaviour  in this case because Salmond wanted something from Cameron. He was the supplicant but it was Cameron who  behaved as a supplicant.
  2. The placing of the Better Together campaign in the hands of the Labour Party. This meant the game was played according to Salmond’s rules, because  Labour is heavily dependent on Scotland to provide MPs and is one of the main players in the Scottish Parliament.  Consequently,  the Better Together spokesmen were constantly treading on eggshells  in case their behaviour rebounded not merely on the Better Together campaign but Labour’ fortunes generally.  The exclusion  from the Better Together campaign of political voices who were not Scots  reinforced this  problem. Because it was wall to wall Scots being put up by the Better Together campaign, those who acted as its spokesmen lived in terror of being accused of being a traitor or Quisling or generally slighting Scotland. This meant they were constantly lauding the great qualities of Scotland and the Scots whilst saying by implication that Scotland were not fit to rule itself.  The absence of  non-Scottish voices also meant that there was no balance whatsoever to the frankly over-the-top representation of the human resources of the country both past and present.  There was no Better Together speaker who simply gave the pros and cons of the debate without encasing it in Scottish patriotic mantras.
  3. The choice of Alastair Darling as head of Better Together. If there was a turning point against the NO campaign it was Darling’s dire performance in his second debate with Salmond.
  4. The Unionist politicians’ response to a single poll two weeks from the ballot showing the YES camp marginally ahead  was unalloyed  panic as Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all suddenly headed for Scotland   promising Scotland the Earth, including the preservation in apparent perpetuity of the Barnett Formula.  Such promises were bogus because only the Westminster  Parliament can sanction such promises and no Parliament can bind a successor.  This made the NO camp look both dishonest and lacking in character (Frankly, these  are   not people with whom you  would want to be with in a tight corner).

To these errors can be added  points which remained unmade and  questions unasked by the Better Together representatives which would have seriously embarrassed the YES side:

– Salmond’s claim that Scotland has part ownership of the Pound. This is a literal nonsense. The legal position is very simple: the Pound Sterling is the English currency. Scotland gained the right to share it when they signed the Treaty of Union. If they leave the Union they forfeit that right because the Treaty and the subsequent Acts of Union will no longer operate.

– Salmond’s threat to default on taking a proportionate share of the UK national debt if they do not get a currency union. This is a non-starter because Scottish independence is dependent on the Westminster Parliament repealing the Act of Union.

–  Why on Earth did no one on the Better Together side not ask Salmond the question              “Who will be Scotland’s lender of the last resort if there is Sterlingisation?” A simple            question but one Salmond would not have been able to evade.

– The startling failure of the NO camp to expose s the bogus nature of the “independence”  Salmond was chasing by mentioning the out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire result of Scotland joining the EU. This was  down to the fact that all the  Westminster politicos involved in the NO campaign are bound by their devotion to the EU  not to mention the UK’s subordination to the EU at all costs.  To accuse Salmond of seeking to go from emersion in the UK to emersion  in the EIU, quite probably within the Euro, would be to admit that the UK is not independent but a prisoner of the EU.

The influence of the pollsters

The polls seriously understated the noes.   The last YouGov Poll (taken after people had voted)  gave the No camp a lead of  six points.  Earlier polls had veered wildly (although only two showed the YES camp in the lead).  During the campaign pollsters  were suggesting margins of error as high as six  either way which means a span of 12 points.  A margin of error of  two either way is reasonable, three is  just about acceptable,  but anything larger simply means the poll is next to worthless.

Why did pollsters  get it so wrong?   Many  polls these days  are conducted through the  internet rather than by phone or even better face to face.  These are  based on cohorts of those of different social and economic status, age, gender and ethnicity whose details are held by the company.  The sample for a poll is drawn from this   database. This  produces a  built in bias because it only draws its samples from those who are computer literate and have access to a computer.  This will under-represent  the poor  generally and older people  in particular, the latter being  much less likely to use computers but  more likely to vote and vote NO in this particular poll.

The second thing understating the noes was the intimidatory atmosphere towards NO voters  in which the referendum was  conducted.    Although there may have been rough stuff on both the YES and NO sides,  the balance of misbehaviour was heavily on the YES side. For example, there were widespread complaints in the mainstream media  about the vandalising of NO posters and plenty of examples where NO supporters were shouted down, often with accusations of being traitors or Quislings .   There was little of this type of behaviour  reported in the mainstream media  involving NO supporters .  It is easy to see how NO supporters could be wary of advertising who they were supporting.

Even where polls are accurate, there is a very strong case for banning polling during any campaign involving an official  ballot because of the natural  herd mentality within humans in the mass.  They undoubtedly influence voting behaviour. In this referendum the case for banning polls was made a good deal stronger by the their  lack of veracity. This had its most dramatic effect  when a  single poll showing the YES camp  marginally ahead panicked  the leaders of the three major UK parties into  making promises to the Scots which they did not have the power to keep and which by their nature would have severely damaged English interests had such promises been kept.  A clearer example of polling influencing a public vote would be difficult to find.

Why did the Noes win?

In the end the primary reason was the fact that the YES side to often offered the voters  little more than emotion on which to base their decision.  No matter what facts  were  provided by the NO side, no matter what questions were asked, the YES side effectively  stopped their ears and shouted that they weren’t listening.

The three major Westminster parties stated that there would be no currency union, the Yes side said it was just a bluff (it should be remembered that Salmond was booed during his first debate with  Alastair Darling when he repeatedly refused to answer the question).  When Salmond said Scotland would not take on a proportionate share of the UK’s national debt if there was no currency union he refused to engage with those who pointed out that it would be treated as a default  with serious consequences for Scotland’s ability to borrow on the international markets and allegedly said “What are they [the rest of the UK] going to do, invade us?”.   When  senior EU figures said that Scotland would have difficulty in joining the EU at all or on the terms the YES camp  claimed would be available, essentially those which Scotland  enjoys  part of the UK, these objections  were waved away as being of no account.  Whilst saying  Scotland would remain part of NATO the Yes side  insisted not only that the British nuclear deterrent must be removed from Scottish soil, seemingly oblivious to the fact that NATO membership, while not requiring nuclear capability of its members, commits them to collective  responsibility  if NATO uses nuclear weapons, for example, in the circumstances of a nuclear strike having occurred on a NATO member.

Those were the headline  issues to which the YES camp had no sensible answer or strategy, but there were many more  questions – defence,  immigration, pensions (both public and private) and welfare  and suchlike – which were left in limbo by the YES camp’s bluster.

Alongside a failure to provide meaningful answers to important questions, there was an unsavoury side to the YES campaign which became nastier as the vote approached  with both  routine intimidation of NO supporters and threats such as those made by the SNP’s former deputy leader  Jim Sellars  that Scottish businesses supporting the NO side would face “a day of reckoning” if there was a YES vote.  Nor did it help that Salmond and co were presenting directly or by implication NO voters as unpatriotic, a tactic encapsulated in their description of YES voters as “Team Scotland  That will have had an effect.

Doubtless  the natural inclination to preserve the status quo  and the warnings by the NO side of dire consequences if there was a YES vote for everything from the currency would use to the price of goods in Scottish supermarkets had  an effect but as these were present throughout the campaign it is reasonable to believe they were of secondary importance to the way the YES camp presented themselves.

The YES camp made the mistake of thinking that a single strategy –  appeals to the emotion through patriotism – would be enough.   That was effective with those emotionally vulnerable to such pleas but it offered little to anyone willing to think about the consequences of independence.   It is perhaps significant that the wealthier and better educated  voters favoured NO, while the poorer and less educated favoured YES .  The poor are less likely to have voted, something shown by the lowest turnout in the referendum (75%)  being in Glasgow, by far the largest electoral  district  in Scotland.  There  were not enough people with whom the patriotism drum resonated who also took the trouble to vote.