The case for a policy of Independence for England

 
At our Conference and AGM on the 21st September 2013 in Leicester the English Democrats will be debating the following resolution:-

“The English Democrats believe that England should again be an independent nation state and we will campaign to that end.
The English Democrats demand that a referendum be held for the People of England to decide whether England should become independent again and cede from the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

Here is the accompanying paper in support. What do you think?

The case for a policy of Independence for England

By Derek Hilling and Leon Martin 

After more than a decade since the advent of devolution within the United Kingdom, the British government refuses to recognise the legitimate concerns of the people of England regarding the unfairness of the devolution settlement. In that period nothing whatsoever has been done to address the concerns of the English, who believe that they are paying for yet receiving none of the benefits of devolution. The main political parties refuse to even discuss these concerns and some of their leaders even deny the very existence of England as a separate nation. In light of this outright intransigence the English Democrats believe that the time has come to promote the cause and principles of English Independence. This means that England should break-away from the United Kingdom, and once again become an independent nation state.

The English Democrats are calling for a referendum on this matter so that the people of England may be given a choice to determine their own future.

The English Democrats start from the basic principle that the English Nation is entitled to self-determination and its people are entitled to citizenship of that nation. England’s membership of the United Kingdom denies us expression of these entitlements.

The leaders of all the main political parties conspired to create devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but did nothing to offer the same rights to the people of England.

The consequence of devolution has been that the people of England now suffer from unfair distribution of the resources of the United Kingdom. We pay more than our fair share of taxes but receive less than our fair share of the resources. It is clear that this injustice will never be righted until the people of England break-free from the shackles of the United Kingdom.

The benefits of England becoming are independent country are that:

An immediate cessation of England’s membership of the European Union , saving £billions in contributions;

English business would be free from the E.U.’s bureaucratic red tape;

England would regain control over our own borders, ending the unchecked immigration that the E.U. has fostered;

English People would be able to promote their historic culture and identity which has been denied them by the British state;

We would promote an English cultural renaissance and give our people a sense of pride in who they are and what they have achieved;


English customs and manners are valued as part and parcel of the fabric of our culture and could be promoted as the public culture of England;


England would be free from the need to subsidise both the rest of the UK as well as large parts of Europe;

England could broaden its trading relations with all countries, especially the emerging economies in Latin America and Asia; we have become too reliant on Europe which is in the grip of economic paralysis.

If the people of England decide that we should become independent, then an English Government would be formed so as to conduct negotiations with the Scottish Government and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, as to the division of the debts of the United Kingdom. England cannot be expected to go on forever subsidising those who cannot pay their own way.


We believe that the best way for the people of England to improve their living standards and achieve the national unity and social cohesion that we all want is for England to become an independent nation. The English Democrats are convinced that a free and independent England will be able to rid itself of the scourge of debt and release the talents of its people to create a strong and vibrant economy. 

Government corruption - politicising the military?

The next Armed Forces Day is to be staged as a propaganda event and held in Scotland in 2014. In explanation the UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the "event would help underline the strength of the Union"!!!

The great English patriot and scholar Dr Samuel Johnson is reported as saying:-  

"(False) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Whereas he said:-

"A (true) patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers everything to the common interest."

I think it is all too very clear from the story below which catagory Philip Hammond MP falls into!

What do you think?

Here is the BBC News article:-

Stirling to host Armed Forces Day ahead of referendum


The national event for Armed Forces Day is to be held in Stirling next year ahead of the independence referendum.

UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the event would help underline the strength of the union.

Scotland's veterans minister, Keith Brown, said he was not concerned with the UK government's motivation for bringing the event to Scotland.

He said the Scottish government was just glad to be hosting the national day - held annually in June since 2009.

Over the past four years Armed Forces Day has been marked by hundreds of local events around the UK.

It is the second time the national event will be held in Scotland, after Edinburgh played host in 2011.

'Testament to Stirling' Mr Hammond said the events represented what was best about the UK.

"They remind us in a very graphic way that we are stronger together.

"Britain, the United Kingdom and Scotland benefit from the scale and the power and the capability of our armed forces.

"And I know that the people in Scotland have a deep affection for the armed forces."

Mr Brown said there was "no patience" for bringing politics into such events.

"I'm just delighted that the event is returning to Scotland," he said.

"I think that's a testament both to Stirling and also to the success of Armed Forces Day in 2011."

The event highlights the role Britain's armed forces play in national life.

A member of the Royal family will be present to witness the parades, medal ceremonies and a military fly past.

Stirling Provost Mike Robbins said the city was "tremendously proud" to be chosen to host the celebrations.

"We can now look forward to a truly spectacular set of events next June," he said.

The people of Scotland will vote next September on whether the country should leave the United Kingdom.

They will be asked the straight yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Here is a link to the original >>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23831879

CARE CAP CON TRICK?

CARE CAP CON TRICK?

A guest post by "Broadcaster, Columnist & Blogger David Lowe".

David sent me this and I liked it so much that I asked him if I could post it up and so with thanks to him I do. What do you think?

YOU may already have seen reports in the News about a £75,000 cap on social care for the elderly. That is to say, those of us who are owner-occupiers and/or those of us with substantial savings, and/or an appropriate insurance policy will not be expected to contribute more than £75,000 of the value of our property, savings or policy, should we need social care in our later years.

In February of this year, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced in Parliament that his proposal for such a cap would be of help to a significant number of people in England. He added that, up to now, many families have faced ruinous costs with little or no assistance from the State, so the proposed new framework would "bring greater certainty, fairness and peace of mind."

Okay, so how many of us assumed that this £75,000 cap covered care … i.e. nursing and all other related costs … in their entirety? I certainly did, and if you did too, we were wrong: big time! Only now, is it becoming clearer that the cap covers basic nursing costs and nothing more. It does not cover the costs to the individual of retirement or nursing home fees or even the food served at such establishments.

As if that isn't enough to be getting-on with, there's a big sting in the tail too. If you are assessed at having "low" or "moderate" care needs, the care costs you incur will NOT count towards the £75.000 cap. Only if your needs are assessed as "substantial" or "critical" will the cap come into play. And, as if to add insult to injury, there's yet another aspect to this sorry state of affairs that the politicians seem to think is of little or no consequence. The relevant legislation is not likely to come into force until 2017, and if … note the word "if" … the legislation is approved, those who qualify for assistance, over and above the £75,000 cap, are unlikely to start receiving support before 2019 at the earliest.

For quite a few years now, local government authorities have been stressing that the care of the elderly is grossly under-funded. So why has the issue been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent? Some campaigners point to 1997 when Tony Blair came to power, and claim they've been pressing for - and promised - action ever since. Promises, promises!

Clearly, this is yet another major UK issue involving the retired and elderly that could be resolved overnight by the suspension or scrapping of the largely discredited Overseas Aid we dole-out to all-and-sundry every year. I'm not usually given to quoting chapter and verse but, as a former Sunday school teacher, I'm reminded of a passage from the New Testament … "Why do you seek the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (RSV Matthew 7 verses 3 to 5 inclusive). In other words, let's put our own house in order FIRST, before we try to resolve the perceived, and sometimes wholly imaginary, problems of other nation states.

By the way, I make no apology for using the words "Con Trick" in the title of this article.

British nationalism - v - ENGLISH nationalism: 'threat to UK'?

 

Is ENGLISH nationalism a 'threat to UK'?

I am sometimes asked whether a person can be a British nationalist and also an English nationalist. I don't think so as he would then have divided loyalties and also no clear National Identity. I think this was made quite clear on the BBC a few years ago.

Back in 2000 Jack Straw and William Hague warned of growing English nationalism following devolution, airing their views in a BBC Radio 4 programme called "Brits".

The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said that the English had used their "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland".

Mr Straw described the English as "potentially very aggressive, very violent" and will "increasingly articulate their Englishness following devolution."

Also appearing on the programme was the then Conservative leader, William Hague, who is now the Coalition Government's Foreign Secretary.

Mr Hague said: "English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK."

"Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat," he will say.

Then the programme's producer, Martin Rosenbaum said: "For years people in Wales and Scotland have been thinking about their individual political identity but the English haven't.

"What we show is there is an English backlash but also self-doubt about England's identity.

"Jack Straw is worried that nationalism will manifest itself in violence and wants a positive English identity created which will beat off the unpleasant side."

"Many left wing politicians are frightened of the topic of nationalism because of its associations with the far right - but the issue needs to be discussed." Click here for the original >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/596703.stm

Now we would be able to tell Mr Rosenbaum that English Nationalism is waking up! And may well pose an increasing "threat" to the British Political and Media Establishment's self interested and self serving privileges! See what you think of this youtube clip >>> Part of the Union?....

UNIONISTS are NATIONALISTS too!

Here is an interesting article by a leftwing supporter of Scottish Independence who has correctly diagnosed the agenda of many of those who claim to oppose Scottish, Welsh and English nationalism. These opponents are mostly not opposed to nationalism per se, they are actually opposed to any other nationalism than BRITISH STATE NATIONALISM - although he does miss that some are proponents of EU-ishness!
Here is the article. What do you think?

Unionists, come out and declare your ‘nationalism’!

Gerry Hassan, The Scotsman, August 10th 2013

The story is familiar: there is a pesky, partisan, immature nationalism out and about influencing our body politic.

This is the account of Scottish nationalism put forward by a range of commentators and public figures. Yet it could as easily be articulated about the ideas of unionism because unionism is at its heart a form of nationalism – British state nationalism.

Scottish nationalism has its faults and limitations. It is cautious, conservative and shaped by the characteristics of the society from which it was born. It is also a nationalism, but at least it understands itself as such and is seen as such a phenomenon by everyone.

Unionism doesn’t comprehend that it is a nationalism. It is an obvious point when you think about it. What state does unionism declare its allegiance and loyalty to above all else? The British state. Yet unionism is in denial that it is such a thing as nationalism; it thinks nationalism is about others and not about itself.

For this reason, unionism is not at a very mature stage in the development of nationalism, being intransigent about the British state and parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the EU, and even worse, hung up on superficialities such as flags, symbols, borders and border controls, which have traditionally transfixed certain types of nationalism.

The fact that unionism is a form of nationalism, a point accepted as uncontroversial in political science debates, does not make it any less legitimate or a mainstream part of Scotland and the UK. But this lack of self-knowledge and self-acceptance limits and damages our political debate.

Many pro-union writers of intelligence such as Brian Wilson in ‘The Scotsman’ or Hugo Rifkind in ‘The Times’ believe that they can take the moral high ground by dismissing Scottish nationalism for a variety of reasons. These include that it is all about emotions, past history, imagined grievances, and shaped by a bourgeois set of priorities irrelevant to economic and social concerns.

The emotional dismissal of Scottish nationalism is an interesting one. Brian Wilson argues that the economic case put forward by Alex Salmond and John Swinney is a cover, and that if it could be proven that an independent Scotland would be less well off, Nationalists wouldn’t reverse their position. Thus the argument goes that this isn’t about economics, but emotions and instincts and can therefore be dismissed.

Yet the opposite argument is just as true and revealing. If Brian Wilson found out that an independent Scotland would be economically better off and socially more just, he would not give up on his belief in the UK. The reason is the same – his attachment to the UK is not economic, but that of an emotional nationalist.

British nationalism if it wanted to start engaging and being relevant at this point would embrace the idea of a serious, long-term project of nation building at the British level which addressed the multiple challenges and crises of Britain. It would come up with pan-British projects beyond the tokenism of the Olympics and Southern connected focus of HS2 which tried to tackle the realities of the disunited kingdom.

It would deal with the quasi-independence of London as a world city from the rest of the UK, the over-concentration of public infrastructure projects and investment in London and the South East (to the huge detriment of the North West and North East of England), and the absence of any political will in the Westminster classes from doing anything about this.

The United Kingdom is one of the most unequal states in the rich world, with one of the most uneven regional patterns of development anywhere, and an economy, hugely imbalanced and skewed towards short-term, predatory capitalism. For all of the talk of ‘rebalancing the economy’, the UK in investment to GDP ratios is 159th in the world on 2012 figures, with a mere fourteen countries below it, seven in the sub-Saharan Africa.

An intelligent, reforming unionism would address these long-term challenges and crises which link to the decline in authority of the various British establishments, political, business, media and civic, and the collapse of trust in public institutions. This relates to the decline in the idea of Britain which can be seen across the four nations of the union, and which won’t be reversed by words and bluster, but need deeds which so far look impossible.

Next year’s independence debate can be interpreted as one between two competing claims of nationalism. One (Scottish) is ‘out’ and self-aware and self-reflective about its characteristics. The other (British) is mostly in denial and lacking in self-knowledge and self-awareness as a version of nationalism.

A choice between two nationalisms does not to put it mildly give us a very varied, dynamic political conversation. Nor does it address the central issues which have shaped much of the Scottish debate. Nationalism is at its core a reductive philosophy, one that is about the competing claims of nations and the form of states.

This is a reason Scottish nationalism has pitched its appeal on the centre-left of politics, but we have to make the break more explicit and widen the choice. We have to address what kind of Scotland do we want to live in, which just doesn’t mean self-government versus the union, but what kind of values and priorities do we want to champion as a society?

This should not be about one nationalism versus another, and nor should we let the bunkum of one nationalism pretending it isn’t one, while patronising and caricaturing the other, shape the political environment.

There is an element of condescension and attempted delegitimisation on the part of a generation of senior and former Labour politicians such as Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling and George Robertson.

Rather than engage in their endless posturing, it would be more useful for all of us, if thoughtful unionist voices addressed how they plan to put back the disunited kingdom that characterises the economic, social and political facets of the modern UK. Unionism must have more to say on the big challenges of our day rather than just hectoring and insulting its opponents; but that requires confronting the many unpleasant truths about the state of the UK, which is a bit more difficult than empty rhetoric and denial.

(Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.gerryhassan.com/uncategorized/unionists-come-out-and-declare-your-nationalism/)