Total Visits

Saturday, 30 August 2014

Lie back and think of England? For many English people, the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence is a reminder of England’s Cinderella status in the United Kingdom.

On the 28 August 2014, in "The Conversation", Prof Eunice Goes, the Associate Professor of Communications at Richmond American International University (Surrey), published this article:-  

As Scotland decides its future, lie back and think of England

For many English people, the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence is a reminder of England’s Cinderella status in the United Kingdom. While Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoy a large degree of self-government, Wales has significant administrative autonomy (and is in the process of gaining a wide range of new legislative powers), England is entirely governed by Westminster and Whitehall.

But this constitutional state of affairs is no longer considered acceptable by many English who feel overlooked by Westminster politicians and short-changed by asymmetrical devolution. In particular, English voters seem to resent the fact that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that affect England whilst Scottish issues are (mostly) decided by the Holyrood parliament.

An opinion poll commissioned by the universities of Edinburgh and Cardiff revealed that 62% of English voters agree that, following a no vote, “Scottish MPs should be prevented from voting on laws that apply only in England”. This hardening of attitudes towards Scotland is hardly shocking but what came as a surprise to many is that 54% of voters supported the idea of an English parliament.

Until now the Westminster elite assumed English voters were not interested in self-government. That was a comforting thought to those who believed that the best answer to the “West Lothian question” was not to ask it.

But in reality the English were never given the chance to taste genuine self-government. Proposals for an English Parliament were never contemplated and for good reasons too. As a representative body of the largest and richest nation of the United Kingdom, an English Parliament would dwarf the devolved bodies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and would reduce Westminster to political and constitutional irrelevance.

The eight English regional assemblies proposed by the last Labour government in 2003 were an unsatisfactory solution too. Those regional assemblies had so few legislative powers that they were little more than talking shops. So it is not surprising that in 2004 voters from the Northeast of England voted no on the referendum that proposed to create what they saw as an extra layer of politicians and bureaucrats.

The 2004 referendum in the Northeast of England put an end to the debate on English devolution, but maybe it is time to revisit the idea of regional assemblies. The result of the Scottish referendum may make it a necessity. If, as the opinion polls suggest, Scottish voters reject independence, the train is already in place for Westminster to grant further fiscal powers to Holyrood. The three main parties have recently given assurances to Scotland about the scenario of “devo-max”.

And as MPs and peers return to Westminster in the coming weeks they will pen the final amendments to the Wales Bill which will grant more powers, including borrowing and taxation powers, to the Welsh Assembly. These two developments will emphasise the asymmetrical nature of devolution and will foment further English resentment towards the non-English MPs sitting in Westminster.

More importantly, the mood also changed in England. English devolution is no longer a cause defended only by fringe groups such as the English Democrats. This cause is gaining some momentum amongst English (and some Scottish) MPs. More importantly, English voters seem to be open to the idea. As Professor Professor Michael Kenny showed in his book The Politics of English Nationhood, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh devolution, rising mistrust towards the European Union, and the sense of economic and cultural insecurity brought by globalisation have contributed to the rise of an English national identity.

In Westminster, the three main political parties have been aware of the changing mood in England but for a variety of reasons – namely electoral considerations and a fear of stirring the wrong type of nationalism – do not know how to respond to it. The parties of the coalition seem to be in two minds about it. Having abolished the English regional development agencies in 2010 the coalition has recently promised a £6bn fund to boost development in the English regions.

The Labour Party seems less confused but it is equally timid. This spring, Labour leader Ed Miliband made proposals for devolution of fiscal powers to English cities. But they are too modest, too technocratic and do not seem to either recognise rising English national identity or to address the constitutional problems created by Scottish and Welsh devolution.

In fairness, these are not easy problems to solve. Having ruled out big bang solutions like an English parliament, piecemeal proposals such as regional representation in the House of Lords or those made by the McKay Commission leave the fundamental problem of the English question unanswered. But this does not mean that there are no other options.

As the Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael recently suggested there is a “logical conclusion” to this constitutional conundrum. That logical solution is federalism and English regional assemblies. He may well be right.

Click here for the original >>>

My response to her was:-

Dear Professor Goes,

Re: Your article “As Scotland decides its future, lie back and think of England”

I was interested to read your article and would thank you for your mention of the English Democrats.

The IPPR opinion polls suggest that all our hard work and expense in now distributing over 30 million leaflets and attendance on numerous television and radio interviews is beginning to pay off.

I do however very strongly disagree with your final remarks. Alistair Carmichael’s reported comments would be outrageous for any Scot to call for the dismemberment of England.

His neo-colonialist comments neatly show the very reason why the demand for English Independence is growing. Support for it now being greater than support for the status quo – 19% to 18%. That is a far greater proportion of the population of England than voted for his Party!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

The English Democrats

Prof Goes seems to be an internationalist Far-Leftist, if this is to be believed >>> Beeb Bias Craig: WHO'S LEFT OUT?

.... the far-left Portuguese writer Dr Eunice Goes.....The lovely Eunice thought that "the public at large are not too bothered" about (immigration)....Eunice Goes .... wholeheartedly ... sung the praises of mass immigration. Gavin Esler intervened at this point to back up Eunice, saying "I've conducted some public meetings and ordinary members of the public have said precisely that, our health service could not exist without people who are migrants." When Saul raised the point that many people think immigration has been "excessive" and that the UK is a rare example of a country that doesn't know how many immigrants it has, he was leaped on by all and sundry, including.... Eunice (who) had a few angry goes at him too. Ah, the old rallying cry of the Left against the Right: "Shut up!!"
Incidentally, for regular viewer of Dateline (if there are any, other than me and Martin at B-BBC!), the role usually provided by French lefty Marc Roche was this week taken by Eunice Goes, who said "most of the Conservative MPs who will come to parliament on May 6th, they are not urbane, metropolitian guys like David Cameron. They are, most..many of them, climate change deniers, homophobes, xenophobes and supporters of the death penalty." Yasmin Alibhai Brown loved it and laughed uproariously. That's the quality of commentator they have on Dateline!


  1. Ughh , Ali Baa Baa Brown, I am in complete sympathy with Michael Fabricant.

  2. I have been told that the Rotherham child abuse saga has changed some NO voters to YES. This proves all along that national identity is the key as to who wins the referendum.


  3. Scottish Secretary Lib Dem Alisdair Carmichael MP, along with the rest of the LibLabCon coalition and Whitehall, is wrong about regional assemblies.
    There can only be one outcome of an English parliament and that is English independence from the UK. That is why the British establishment (and Ukip) will do anything to avoid granting the English a parliament.

    1. I have posed the very same idea to a lot of people but nobody will give me a satisfactory answer - perhaps they don't care, more likely. I presume that if England had its own parliament then surely it would have the same power to call an independence referendum like Scotland. I assume this is why we have not been granted devolution and they keep on spinning the same line that 'Westminster IS the English parliament' - what nonsense. I wish the English would wake up and realise that they are being manipulated by the British robber baron establishment and their network of greedy sycophants - but then they've been doing it for nearly a thousand years and have plenty of experience in keeping the English obedient.

      Also, on a side note, I noticed that Jerusalem was used as the English national anthem during the CGs. Now that would be my choice as it stirs my heart - unlike 'God Save the Queen' - but when was the English consulted? - I wasn't. I thought at the time that the British had grudgingly thrown us a bone - that's nice of them - probably due to Scottish complaints. Lets hope they vote, yes.

      It would have been nice to feel part of building our post British country with the selection of our own national anthem - something to feel proud of. I suppose they can't give the English too much autonomy, we might end up getting above our station.

  4. In the last few weeks before the referendum on September the 18th, English Democrats should be up in Scotland and be seen to be campaigning for a 'yes' vote alongside the SNP

  5. What has changed, that Regional Assemblies would have beeen "little more than talking shops" back in 2004 and now, they would somehow serve a purpose? To be any use to anyone, they would need money to spend and there isn't any.
    She's right about one thing, though, an English Parliament would render the British one all but irrelevent and no power-wielding set-up is going to vote itself out of existence!
    She appears to pssess a pretty good vocabulary of Politically Correct insults, too.

  6. Perhaps the Geordies rejected the idea of a regional assembly because they did not want England split up into regions. We do not, not, not want this as this is all part of the EU plan and the One World Government plan as well. Perhaps somebody should have asked the Geordies if they wanted English independence and an English parliament. Interesting about the Rotherham business and the Scots. Perhaps if they do get indpendence they will want Salmond and his civic nationalism to change his tune and slam the door on the Pakistanis flooding in. Perhaps the Scots do want to retain their national identity whereas ours is now at the 11th hour.

    A UKIP supporter has just sent me Tim Congdon's latest interesting piece on the contest between De Gaulle's Europe des Patries and Jean Monnet's plan for a United States of Europe. Interestingly, of course, Marine Le Pen is the heir or heiress to De Gaulle. And don't we not want a Europe des Patries of which those patries will include England, Scotland and Wales and not the United Kingdom. Interestingly, also, Congdon tells us that Monnet never foresaw the United States of Europe as being a democratic entity. Basically he foresaw it as the Marxist totalitarian monster it has become and whose construction will be completed on 1st November as I have told you Robin.

    Somebody recently - an American - described today's United States as a fascist body where those two banks and the big corporations tied to them have reduced the populace to slavery just like IG Farben. The same is now true of Europe and it will get worse once the transatlantic investment and trade programme being discussed in secret is a reality.
    Interestingly, the Italians are now demanding to know the contents of those negotiations between the EU and the US.

    My hero Paul Craig Roberts, the US treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan ( nice but dim but was his dementia induced some have suggested) has told us what we knew about the Ukraine.
    The Ukraine is now in economic freefall and is being reduced to the level of Greece. As with the troika in Greece the Rothschild cartel via the IMF are coming up with loans which the Ukraine will never be able to repay. Then the fairy godmother which is the big American corporations and oil companies will come to save the day by buying up all the assets and the oil and gas and fracking on some of Europe's best agricultural land so that it and the water supply will remain polluted.
    The poor Ukrainians in the west have been conned by the evil people in Washington, New York and the City of London ( the latter is known as the Crown but has nothing to do with the monarch). Those in the east are just being massacred or driven into Russia. However, Urkrainian army losses are now running at about 70 a day and those in the West want Poroshenko impeached. Just as the rest of us they are the victims of these evil psychopaths bent on total world domination for their own evil ends; to rule over a world that is in ruins and populated by their slaves.

    Can nobody stop these people who are already determined on English and all white genocide because of Europeans' innate qualities which makes them resist their plans. If Scotland says no then England must be allowed to vote before there is nothing of England left.