Total Visits

Thursday, 26 April 2012


In the small media flurry of anti-English articles surrounding St George’s Day and the start of taking evidence by the Government’s Devolution Commission, this article was published uncritically in the Daily Telegraph.

Here is the article:-
“For England’s sake we still have to answer the West Lothian Question
Recognising that the UK is more than just Greater England is the key to saving it
By Jim Gallagher, 18 Apr 2012

Holyrood has finally approved, in the Scotland Bill, the biggest transfer of powers ever from Westminster but the argument over independence and the relationship between Scotland and England continues.
From an English perspective the time has come to do something about the West Lothian Question. But what is the answer? Gladstone thought this puzzle was beyond the wit of man: but in a research paper published today – England and the Union - I offer an answer.
When asked, most people think it can't be right to allow Scottish MPs to vote on English domestic issues, when they are devolved in Scotland. The same was true for many years in Northern Ireland and, now the Cardiff Assembly has real legislative powers, it matters for Wales as well.
The problem is that Westminster is the UK's Parliament but it's England's Parliament too. The same goes for the Government.
So why not have an English Parliament – wouldn't that be tidy all round? It may be entirely logical but it is entirely wrong. The most prominent supporter of an English Parliament is Alex Salmond, because he knows it's the way to end the UK.
An English Prime Minister, controlling most public spending, would soon be a bigger figure than David Cameron, the UK's Prime Minister.
Westminster would no longer be the focus of our national politics. Nation would treat with nation and the union would become a thing of the past.
The Union on these islands is worth preserving: future generations would be astonished at our ineptitude if we let it disintegrate in response to pressure from nationalists who don't even command majority support in Scotland.
But it's a lopsided creature, with England 85 per cent of the whole, dominant economically and politically. Nothing is going to change that, and it explains why the English seldom think much about it. For the most part, they've had no real need to distinguish between England and the UK.
But during the last 10 years the three small Celtic nations have gained a degree of political autonomy, and asserted their identities more clearly. The English needn't worry about that, but it has made them more aware of their own identity – and with that comes pressure for some sort of political recognition.
Most English people want "something" done; the problem is that there is no neat "something" to do.
One possibility is to cut the number of non-English MP's at Westminster. That's not really an answer, as some would still be there and voting. But it would make some sense if – and only if – a big part of Westminster's tax powers were given to the devolved bodies. Otherwise we break the link between taxation and representation.
The best answer lies in changes to parliamentary processes for English legislation. This takes us down the arcane byways of Commons procedure: but it can be done, and would oblige a government to pay heed to English opinion.
A variant of the plans Ken Clarke drew up for the Conservative Party in 2008 is entirely practicable. The trick is to set up a route through the Commons that involves English (or for some things maybe English and Welsh) committees at key points. All MPs would retain the same status, but certain committees could reflect only English views.
It is important that England's government should continue to be able to govern and so the new committees should be designed not to hamstring that government.
Here is how to would work. The whole House of Commons would vote on the second reading of a bill. That way the government – if it has a majority – should be able to determine the decision in principle on its bills.
But then the stages at which a bill can be amended - committee stage and report stages, should be taken in English committees, with a majority of English MP's. There would have to be some limits to the number and scope of amendments that could be made to a bill, but the government would have to accept them if it wants to get its bill through.
Such dramatic change would need a cross party consensus – it's too easy to present it as being driven by partisan advantage – but a few facts might help in a shrill debate.
First, the idea that a Tory voting England regularly has Labour governments imposed on it by the Celtic fringe is a myth. To form a stable government any party needs to win England. Other MPs are only critical when England is split down the middle.
That's seldom happened: Harold Wilson struggled on with an English minority but a UK majority for two years from 1964, and for 8 months in 1974. But since then Labour has only won when it won England.
The risk will be even less now that constituencies are to be equalised. And England-only legislation is not as common as people think. So change will neither guarantee a Tory hegemony nor cripple every Labour government.
Consensus ought to be possible. The UK lacks a convincing explanation of why and how the Union hangs together - what makes a political union work, how do we keep our deeply integrated economy and still devolve some tax powers and, hardest of all, what sort of social union are we?
Devolution made it harder to take the Union for granted. Scottish nationalism made it imperative to answer these questions. Perhaps it's fitting that it's the realisation that England is a political community too, and so the Union not just a greater England, that will make it possible to give the answers.”

Perhaps I should no longer be surprised at the duplicity of the British Political and Media Establishment but somehow I expected better of the Daily Telegraph despite its self-proclaimed “Campaign for Britishness”.

The first point to note is this article is a blatant attack on the integrity of England and the idea of Englishness by someone styling himself as a professor, who claims to write “From an English perspective…”

So I wondered who is this apparently Oxford based “Professor”?

The strap line under the article states:-
“Professor Jim Gallagher is Gwylim Gibbon Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford”

It goes on to state that:-
“England and the Union : How and Why to Answer the West Lothian Question”, is published by IPPR. (

The article seems to be part of the publicity for the launch of a think tank paper.

So Prof Jim’s paper is published by the IPPR - that is Labour’s favourite think tank the - Institute of Public Policy Research.

So far, so interesting but when you go to Nuffield College’s site and look up “Professor” Jim Gallagher you will find:-
Jim Gallagher former 10 Downing Street Adviser and former Head of Justice Department, Scottish Government
Professor Jim Gallagher is a Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford and a former head of the Scottish Justice Department. He is a Visiting Professor in the School of Law at the University of Glasgow, and Non-Executive Director of Lothian and Borders Police as well as a Council Member of the Law Society of Scotland, and a Director of a number of companies in the Financial Services sector.”

If you follow the trail further you find that “Professor” Jim Gallagher doesn’t work at Nuffield College or even work at the University of Glasgow!

In fact what is he a “Professor” of? (or for?)

Then if you consider his fellow “Gwilym Gibbon “Fellows” at Nuffield College then matters start to fall into place. Here is the list:-

Patrick Diamond, Gwilym Gibbon Research Fellow
Professor Jim D. Gallagher, Gwilym Gibbon Research Fellow
Guy Lodge, Gwilym Gibbon Research Fellow”

And here are the biographies of the other 2 “fellows”:-
Guy Lodge, Associate Director for Politics and Power
Areas of expertise:
Political and constitutional reform in the UK
Political participation and democratic change
Contemporary British political history
Central and local government
Devolution and UK territorial politics
British elections and voting systems
National identity
Guy also leads IPPR’s partnership with the Institute of Policy and Analysis, Rwanda (IPAR).
Guy regularly comments on British politics and public policy issues in the national and international media. Recent appearances include the BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Channel 4 News, The Daily Politics, BBC Breakfast, Five Live and The Week in Westminster. His work has been extensively covered in the print media with recent coverage in The Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, Sun, New York Times, Economist, International Herald Tribune, Prospect magazine and the Australian.
His book Brown at Ten (co-authored with Anthony Seldon) was named as one of the Independent’s political books of 2010 and was described by the Guardian as a ‘must read for anyone who wants to know what really happened in the final three years of the Labour government’.
Before joining IPPR, Guy worked at the Constitution Unit, in the School of Public Policy, University College London. He has also worked in the House of Commons and at the Fabian Society.
He is a Gwilym Gibbon Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford University, and is also a Visiting Research Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, also at Oxford University. He was educated at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Patrick Diamond is Gwilym Gibbon fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, and a visiting fellow in the department of politics at the University of Oxford. He is also an elected member of Southwark Council and is the former head of policy planning in 10 Downing Street and senior policy adviser to the prime minister. Recently, he was co-editor of "After the Third Way: The Future of Social Democracy in Europe.”

Dear Reader, please guess which Party was in power when two of these three “Fellows” worked at Number 10. Clue - it shares the first letter of the word ‘Liar’! In short these Gwilym Gibbon Fellowships appear to be a patronage club benefit for a certain type of politics!

Now pause a minute to consider how incestuous is the relationship between “British” politics and the “British” media that such an article, with such an author, and from such a background, could be reported in the Daily Telegraph, in such a way! The moral is that you cannot take what the British media says at face value!


  1. The day it this was published in the telegraph I left my comment on his page and my first lines were "Professor or no professor get stuffed "England Forever" anyone with a Irish/Scottish type name i am always on my guard against "ANGLOPHOBIA"
    Like I said England Forever Always ENGLAND !
    Prof haha !

  2. by the way send this reply to the telegraph ! always England

  3. Absolutely absurd, unnecessary and a total fudge again!. The so called media and the politicians just don't get it, they constantly and glibly refer to the expense of an English parliament when the alternatives of any fudge are worse in cost and effect..................
    Where do these incompetents spring from?

  4. Sorry Robin, I gave up the Telegraph many years ago for just such woolly headed Anglophobic Hogwash. Is it not owned by Foriegners?

  5. Any one less than 70 years old, knows naff all about'English idenity' or 'culture' since these were destroyed many years ago under the weight of massive and uncontrolled immigration. all they know is what they have gleaned from history books or the rubbish printed in the press. The most popular boys name in this country is Mohammed and the most common surname is Patel. What do the Mohammed Patels care about the celts? 'f' all!!

    1. Agreed - but if we do nothing now - we will be obliterated forever.
      We must act whilst we still can - immigrants contribute daily to the population - so there will come a time (not too far away) when we will become totally impotent in trying to maintain our culture and heritage.
      Usually the best form of revoloution involves more radical methods (more effective in a shorter space of time) - but up to us to make people (especially the young) aware of their heritage - and ensure that PC claptrap is removed forever - no one said it would be easy - but it is vital!

  6. Typical obfuscating bullsh!t.
    The Orwellian arguments of these Marxists would be laughable if the situation wasn't so dire.
    Federalism works in so many countries, Switzerland being the nearest example.
    But of course, that example doesn't suit the Marxist imperative of a global dictatorship. Shame they can't see the wood for the trees.

  7. The sneaky political elite are hoodwinking the English people by using the taxpayers money to fund these left-wing Marxist groups ,quango's and "think tank's" ALL quietly operating in the Universities and college's throught-out England. This is why we have such an unbalanced media view to the majority very few DEMOCRATIC VOICE's are being heard !.
    As for Democracy .The BBC are at the forefront of this undemocratic agenda at times the worst offender namely at most part BBC TV radio's 4 and 5

  8. He who pays the piper calls the tune, hence the same old tune.

  9. The English Problem could be solved quite easily giving the political will, (which obviously does not exist), by the following actions.

    All members of parliament who do not represent an English Constituency should retire at the next election, and the remaining members form a devolved parliament on the lines of the Scottish Parliament. This would work from the exixting House Of Commons. The House of Lords to be abolished and replaced by a new and much smaller body, fully elected by proportional representation from the four British Nations, namely England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The New English Parliament would deal with the same devolved matters as the Scottish Parliament, and the new second chamber which would become the UK Parliament, would deal with the reserved matters. This would reduce the number of MPs by 117 and the number of "Lords" byup to 800. The combined effect of these measures would save the United Kingdom many millions of pounds annually and would significally improve our democracy. Obviously no existing MP or "Lord" would agree to this, it would require a sustained campaign for a referendum to achieve this and would take many years to come to fruition. The time to start is now, and requires the goodwill of all patriotic Englishmen in Petitions and any other methods avilable.

    English John.

  10. In the early 50s the left infiltrated almost every critical strand of our society: The media; education; and of course the BBC. This was not by chance, it was a deliberate attempt to undermine the countries social fabric and to a large part it succeeded - hence the strikes of the 60s and general unrest. The teaching profession has still not fully recovered (you only have to witness their conferences), and our grandchildren are still suffering the consequences. While the end of the period of deference was certainly welcome (largely brought about by the young people in the 60s),the social inbalance prevails. Both left and right cling to the status quo and see English nationalism as a threat. Which is why all nationalist parties are almost always referred to as 'extreme right-wing'. The BBC in particular love the phrase. They have admitted a left-wing leaning, but it seems to me to have done nothing about correcting this bias. The solution is staring all those in authority in the face - an English Parliament now! But of course if that came about they would have to work harder and risk losing their cushy life-styles. Thankfully, it seems that the British electorate have become disenchanted with the 3 big parties so perhaps we will gradually become a popular alternative - meanwhile the Greens will bring their brand of socialism and UKIP may enjoy a bit more clout (still I confess to having a lot of sympathy with Nigel Farage). Until that happy day we will have to tolerate the establishments tricks. But expose them whenever possible - like now - well done Robin.

    1. Way back in the 1980s I became aware of the activities of Lady Jane Birdwood. She was of course an enemy of the state because she was opposed to multi-racialism as it was called then. Strangely it became multiculturalism as if we were all the same race with different cultures even though racism was and is the direst offence that could/can be committed. Lady Jane even had West Indians and Jews agreeing with her that multiracialism did not work. I think it was when she died that the BBC actually mentioned her death followed by a statement form the anti-fascist organisation "Searchlight". The inference was that Lady Jane was a benighted, racist enemy of the people (1984/North Korea style) and Searchlight and the noble leader had fought tirelessly to ensure that the English people were never contaminated by her evil racist message. It was at that point that I thought, maybe the BBC is a trifle biased towards the left!!??

  11. Dear Robin
    we have developed a Christian/democracy/capitalism over
    1500 years and beyond, based on the family unit,and personal responsibility, we need to go back to this before this is destroyed

  12. I recently read a comment by a lady who said she now wept over her lost land of England. Interestingly the Welsh for England, Lloegr, means the lost lands. But at least the Welsh kept Wales. We will have nowhere but the hills. But we will never let it come to that. You don't have to be 70 to remember an English England. I am just 60 and England was still very English at the time of the Queen's silver jubilee in 1977 so there are many still in their 40s who remember it. As I posted elsewhere, the EU is about to crumble. Greece is set to leave the euro by July and listening to the news today, Spain with its 25% unemployment may rapidly follow, together with Ireland and Portugal. I like Farage because he shares with me a profound sense of logic and common sense and a sense of the ridiculous. None of his fellow politicians either here or in the EU have the same, just look at Barroso or Van Rumpuouy. Could it be because Nigel is much much brighter than they all are? Surprised to hear that Patel is the most common surname in England now as I thought it was Khan, well it is on the police national computer. The Indians are the ones to watch as they are silently taking over large chunks of business. Not for nothing are they known as the Jews of the Orient. Once they get their hands on the money then we are sunk and will be reduced to the same level as the Fijians. The UN will take their side if we try to stage a coup. The muslims will just remain trapped in the middle ages. But then the two of them will be fighting over what is left of England, hopefully to the death. As regards the Telegraph, they still allow us Ed West and his blogs. Despite his relatively young age, he did us the honour of naming Edward Heath as the one who had done most to harm England the other day. This is true, much more harm than Napoleon or Hitler as they were an external threat that we repulsed. Heath was the enemy within who ensured that we had mass immigration and were part of the EU marxist totalitarian superstate. Looked up St George on Wikipedia. He seems to have been the ideal combination of warrior and believer, a true Christian soldier who died for his faith. In a way he comes close to the Archangel Michael who cast the devil down into hell and hopefully will do so again. The Devil is meant to rise to the fore every thousand years. He certainly holds sway at present. In Sweden St George is shown as rescuing the maid that is Sweden from the devil that is the dragon. Still keep your eyes on the East. Holy Russia was the first country that the Marxists and Bankers took over and now has thrown them off. The Russians hate multiculturalism and the muslims and the EU. They know where it is all coming from.

  13. The Saxons drove the Britons west and referred to them in their tongue as Welsh as it is an un complimentary term that describes the Britons, in what is now England, as foreigners and slaves. It was used as a term of abuse which the Welsh now proudly assert as something to be proud of, without nowing its historical implication one suspects.

    I know this subject is complex but it underlines proclaiming something profane as noble. It is the fore runner of the blacks willingly describing one another with the 'n' word, or indeed the braver and younger nationalists adopting the loathesome 'infidel' sobriquet.

    1. DNA surveys have shown that the further west you get the more Celtic blood you find. The Welsh/Brythonic peoples were not driven out totally into Cornwall, Wales and overseas to Little Britain, Breizh/Bretagne. They survived outside Saxon settlements in their Waltons (settlement of the foreigners/slaves) even in the east (Walton on the Naze) and ultimately intermarried. That is why 75% of our dna comes from the original settlers of these islands 11,000 years ago. However, the Anglo-Saxons imposed a Germanic order onto the warring Celts and in time all came to view themselves as one and the same with the Anglo-Saxons i.e. Angelcynn (English) so that by the time of the Norman Conquest England was the richest, most democratic and most civilised country in Europe, having made peace with and christianised the Danish and |Norse Vikings. England, the land of the Angles, became part of the Germanic/Scandinavian world and has shared the same values ever since. Had it not been for the Norman (After 100 years more French than Viking)Conquest we would have been a lot closer. In seeking to stop the obliteration of our identity it is not surprising that many now are harking back to the pre-1066 years, stressing how we differ from the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish and that this is our true identity, it is Northern European, racially and culturally and Christian and never will or was intended to be African, South Asian, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim. Turn the cross of St George around and you have the flag of Denmark where Angeln ( the hook shaped land ) lay until Bismarck stole it for Germany. There are still Danes living in Flensburg. Suddenly the flag of England is everywhere. The English may be terrified of putting their heads above the parapet but I think they are now showing their true feelings and their defiance of their evil social-engineering masters by brandishing both the cross red with Christ's blood and the symbol of their love of their 1100+ year-old fatherland.

  14. New genetic and linguistic research suggests that England has always been part of the Germanic/Scandinavian world - Scandinavian in the North and West Germanic in the South. A distinction preserved in the words Angle and Saxon.

    1. That's interesting. I was not aware of such research and should be grateful to have chapter and verse. I have always noted with amusement that Norwegians speaking English pronounce the word cup with exactly the same u sound as Yorkshiremen. In fact Norwegian word order and syntax is so close to English that Norse Vikings must have had a greater influence on Anglo-Saxon that we used to think. But whatever the truth - and we must bear in mind that Icelanders have a lot of Celtic slave blood, too - time is running out to safeguard the English racial identity. Personally I think the British establishment is in denial as if you look through the pages of the Radio Times only about 1% of the faces in the photographs are non-white. The British establishment may pontificate about the joys of a vibrant multicultural society but if the faces in the Radio Times were suddenly 10% plus non-white I think they would suddenly take fright as the magnitude of their folly is brought home to them. I always did suspect that the British establishment would ensure that the ethnic minorities remained just that in whatever walk of life (the BBC apart). On another tack, I see Khalil Dale's Christian as opposed to Muslim name was Ken. Converting to islam didn't do him a lot of good really. We know another Ken, of course, with a Scottish surname who is their friend. Perhaps he could call himself Khalil as well. I wonder who the Taliban would approach for a ransom for his head?

  15. One possibility is to cut the number of non-English MP's at Westminster. That's not really an answer, as some would still be there and voting. But it would make some sense if – and only if – a big part of Westminster's tax powers were given to the devolved bodies. Otherwise we break the link between taxation and representation.=====================
    Self defeating argument. The most taxed are the English and we also have the least (none) representation. We need out of the UK out of the EU, an English parliament and then we can start to purge Westminster, our institutions, local government, education, unions etc.

    1. First you have to get the sheeple voting for anybody but the three main parties. Opinion polls show Labour on 40%. They can't all be immigrants. This despite the fact that their party political broadcast on tv this week showed Ed Milliband and a bunch of Africans. I thought they were trying to make amends with the working classes. Why none of them in the broadcast? What say you Miss Duffy? In fact nobody - including the dear leader - whose ancestry in these islands goes back beyond 1945 let alone 11,000 years. Perhaps we really are a copy of South Africa already. Blacks and Jewish Marxists, the inheritors of the post-apartheid rainbow.