Total Visits

Friday, 27 March 2015

We will hold Ed and Westminster to ransom: SNP chief boasts!


Following Alex Salmond’s outspoken interview on the Andrew Marr Show last Sunday there have been a spate of articles in the various newspapers making much of Alex Salmond’s “threat” to use the SNP’s likely 50+ MPs to force the next (Labour) Government to give all sorts of concessions, not only to Scottish interests, but also to “progressive politics”.

There has been much wind and fury expended on this topic, but what all the commentators do seem to miss is that this is a problem entirely of the British Establishments own making.

After all the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament have been pointing out for nearly 15 years that what needed to happen, in order to make a level playing field for all the Nations of the UK, was an English Parliament, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones.

There were no sensible or credible arguments against this proposal ever made, merely smear tactics, because it was not seen as being in the interests of either of the three leading parties! If that proposal for a proper Federal UK had been accepted there would now be very little difficulty in accepting SNP representation for Scotland.

The effect of having such a reform would have been to create a Federal United Kingdom, in which the powers and positions of all the various levels were crystal clear and legally binding. It would follow that had that been done, Scottish MPs of whatever colour would not have been able to vote on English-only issues. They would only have had the jurisdiction over the remaining issues reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. In just the same way it is not for the Federal United States Congress to legislate for non-Federal matters which are subject to the States’ jurisdiction. So, for example, we have just had the State of Utah legislate to re-introduce the firing squad method of execution of criminals sentenced to death by their (States) courts. This is nothing whatever to do with the Federal Government and the Federal authorities have no jurisdiction over it whatsoever.

In the same way, had there been a proper Federal UK structure created, rather than a mish mash set up and maintained for what they thought was the convenience of the Establishment parties, Mr Salmond’s MPs would not have been in a position to vote on England specific taxes, part of the product of which could then be spent in Scotland, or to influence the English Government on what it did with the English NHS or English transport policy, such as the proposed building of the HS2.

It is the very absence of an English Parliament which makes it now seem quite unlikely that the Conservatives will form part of the next Government after May 7th.

I am looking forward with interest to hear what kind of diversion tactics they get involved in, in order to try and disguise the fact that the difficulty that they are going to be in is as much as anything a product of their own incompetence and lack of forethought! But then we have been with this very much before with the Conservatives, David Cameron appears to be someone with very little strategic vision and is as one commentator rightly pointed out “slapdash and complacent”. Well now, Mr Cameron, it looks like the Caper Caillie are coming home to roost!

Here is one of the articles I was referring to:-


holds Ed to ransom: SNP chief boasts he would dictate a first Labour budget with plans for £180bn spending spree to 'end austerity'

SNP leader Alex Salmond has revealed he plans to hold Labour to ransom
A landslide for his party would allow him to dictate Ed Balls' first Budget 

Mr Salmond also said construction of HS2 rail line must start in Scotland
Comments described as one of the 'scariest interviews' in political history

Alex Salmond has boasted that a SNP landslide at the General Election would allow him to demand that Ed Balls ends austerity

Alex Salmond vowed yesterday to hold a Labour minority government to ransom to secure a £180billion debt-fuelled spending spree.

Scotland's former first minister boasted that an SNP landslide at the General Election would allow him to dictate Ed Balls's first Budget as Chancellor – and demand that he 'end austerity'.

Mr Salmond also declared construction of the HS2 rail line would have to start in Scotland and Britain's nuclear defences be scaled back.

With polls pointing to a hung Parliament and the SNP on course to win dozens of seats from Labour, he said of last year's independence referendum: 'We haven't lost after all. If you hold the balance, then you hold the power.'

Tory Defence Minister Anna Soubry told him he had delivered one of the 'scariest interviews' in modern political history.

Boris Johnson increased pressure on Labour to rule out any post-election deal with the SNP, which is predicted to take as many as 50 of Scotland's 59 seats, up from six in 2010.

'Labour would be drawn to feed the beast,' he said. 'That's what they have always done. They have created the problems by trying to appease Scottish Nationalism. They have endlessly encouraged it rather than taking it on.'

The Conservative Mayor of London called himself an 'absolutely fervent unionist' and said he was 'very worried' the SNP was deliberately stoking resentment against the Scots in the rest of the UK. He condemned Labour for vowing to use a new levy on expensive homes in the South East of England to pay for public services north of the border.

'I was appalled by what [Scottish Labour leader] Jim Murphy had to say about despoiling London and the South East with property taxes in order to pay for Scotland,' Mr Johnson said. 'That's not going to promote good relations'.

With polls suggesting the SNP could hold the balance of power at Westminster – and fears a deal with Labour could break up the Union – Mr Miliband finally bowed to pressure from senior colleagues last week and ruled out a formal coalition with the Nationalists.

But he has refused to reject a 'confidence and supply' deal, which would see the SNP guarantee to vote for key legislation in the Commons in exchange for concessions. More likely still is the SNP negotiating with a minority Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis.

When asked by the BBC's Sunday Politics yesterday, Mr Murphy declined six times to rule out such an arrangement.

Mr Miliband will today travel to Scotland in a desperate bid to shore up votes, stepping up his warnings that an SNP surge would risk keeping David Cameron in power.

The latest poll suggests Labour is failing to stem the Nationalist tide, with the SNP 21 points ahead on 47 per cent.

The Conservatives last night unveiled an animated campaign video, featuring Mr Miliband dancing a jig as Mr Salmond 'calls the tune'.

Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, the former first minister said he would work with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in a 'progressive' alliance.


Anna Soubry launches a fierce criticism of Alex Salmond on the Andrew Marr show

Alex Salmond faced an extraordinary assault yesterday by Conservative MP Anna Soubry over his plan to hold Westminster to ransom. Here are highlights of their exchange on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show:

MISS SOUBRY: I have to say, I think [Mr Salmond’s] is one of the scariest interviews I have heard for a very long time.

MR SALMOND: Scary? Come on …

MISS SOUBRY: Absolutely! It’s not personal at all. I’ve met Alex a few times – he seems a very charming man, but absolutely terrifying.

The thought that we are in a position where you could be actually controlling, in the way you have described, this United Kingdom fills me with absolute horror. The audacity is astonishing.

There was a wonderful debate in Scotland. You lost it. We are a united kingdom; that’s what the people of Scotland wanted and because of the inadequacies of Labour north of the border …

MR SALMOND: But Anna …

MISS SOUBRY: You guys are now in a position whereby you would be this power broker.

MR SALMOND: So we haven’t lost after all then …

MISS SOUBRY: Exactly! It’s a back-door way of breaking up the Union. It’s really concerning.

MR SALMOND: I wanted Scotland to be independent. I wanted to leave Anna to her own devices in the House of Commons. She wanted us in the House of Commons. Now she’s complaining that we are going to have too many seats. I mean, goodness me …

MISS SOUBRY: This is really concerning for our democracy and for the safety of our nation as well, because of his views on Trident.

MR SALMOND: This is about a gateway decision on renewing the next generation of nuclear weapons, and that would be taken next year. It’s £100billion.

Anna wouldn’t be a defence minister under my formulation [of propping up a minority Labour government]. It’s nothing personal, I just have a fundamental disagreement. She wants the poor to pay. I don’t think we need the new nukes.

MISS SOUBRY: The real problem is this: Alex has made it very clear that, as far as he is concerned, there would be no deal with Labour unless there’s no renewal of Trident.

He has made that very clear. That’s true and honest to his own beliefs…

MR SALMOND: You couldn’t have coalition or confidence and supply, but a vote-by-vote basis is what comes up in the House of Commons …

Miss Soubry: No, no, no. Hang on a moment. When you and I were doing [BBC Radio 4’s] Any Questions, you said it was a red line for the SNP.

MR SALMOND: Yes, for a coalition or confidence and supply, obviously. Vote-by-vote is vote-by-vote …

MISS SOUBRY: We now have a situation whereby Labour is in real danger. There’s an absolute possibility that they will sell out on Trident, they will sell out on our defences. What chaos. Absolute chaos! Chaos.

MR SALMOND: My view is, confidence and supply we describe as possible; I think vote-by-vote is probable.

MISS SOUBRY: God, what a way to run a country!

MR SALMOND: Listen, I ran a minority government for four years …

MISS SOUBRY: Yes, but that was in Scotland. We are are a United Kingdom [Parliament] where we do defence and do other things as well.

He suggested the SNP could support a minority Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis even if it refuses to scrap the Trident nuclear deterrent, a previous 'red line' issue. A 'tartan bloc' at Westminster would 'move the Labour Party in a different direction', Mr Salmond said.

'I think there are lots of people – certainly lots of people in Scotland, but I think people across these islands – [who] are pretty fed up with the duopoly at Westminster and might want to see politics a bit more interesting, where parties have to work for their votes and justify things on a vote by vote basis,' Mr Salmond added.

Asked if Ed Balls would have to negotiate his Budget with the SNP, Mr Salmond replied: 'Yes, any minority government has to negotiate in order to win a majority for its proposal. That is patently obvious. To deny that is to deny reality.'

One of the SNP's many demands is to delay plans to tackle Britain's deficit by spending an extra £180billion over five years on the country's credit card. Treasury chiefs have warned that it would drive up debt.

Challenged to explain how he would respond to Mr Balls if Labour told him 'where to go', Mr Salmond said he would demand that the Scottish phase of the HS2 rail line be built first, rather than the London section.

'Let's say, for example, instead of this very, very slow fast-rail coming up from London, I think we should start [building] it from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Newcastle and I put that down as a Budget amendment,' he said. 'It would have substantial support in the North of England from the other parties and will carry the House of Commons. What does Mr Balls do then?'

Later, he told Sky News's Murnaghan programme: 'What I think is possible is a confidence and supply arrangement where we have a limited number of objectives and in return we would vote for Budgets.

'More probable is a vote-by-vote arrangement. We would move, or attempt to move, the Labour Party away from signing up to the Tory austerity agenda.' Miss Soubry said the possibility of Mr Salmond controlling a Labour government filled her with 'absolute horror'.

She told the Andrew Marr Show: 'That was one of the scariest interviews I've heard for a very long time … absolutely terrifying.'

Confronting Mr Salmond directly, she added: 'The audacity is astonishing. There was a wonderful debate in Scotland – you lost it. We are a united kingdom; that is what the people of Scotland wanted.' ...

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: 'Thanks to Labour's collapse in Scotland the only way Ed Miliband will get to Downing Street is if he does a grubby deal with Alex Salmond.'

He added: 'In every vote … weak Ed Miliband would dance to Alex Salmond's tune – it would cause chaos for the country.'

Scottish Labour Party leader Jim Murphy (pictured) refused six times to rule out a post-election deal with the SNP

Labour's leader in Scotland refused six times to rule out a post-election deal with the SNP in a bruising TV interview yesterday.

The BBC’s Andrew Neil asked Jim Murphy repeatedly whether he would renounce a so-called ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the nationalists.

Both sides have made clear that there will not be a formal coalition with the SNP holding ministerial posts – but neither have ruled out a looser agreement, with the nationalists supporting Labour in certain votes.

Mr Murphy insisted he would ‘not get into further detail of a post-match analysis of a contest that hasn’t yet taken place’.

He said: ‘We are in this contest to win, not for a near draw.’ Asked again if he would rule out a deal with the nationalists, he said: ‘If we are the biggest party we will put our positions on the minimum wage, the living wage and much else besides, if the SNP vote for it, that’s nice.

‘If they vote against it that is their mistake because if we cannot get a majority in the House of Commons ... the SNP would be responsible for bringing down a Labour government.’

He went on: ‘We are trying to win an election, we are trying to win the majority, we cannot do that when the whole debate is about what happens after the election.

‘Let’s talk about public spending, how we make the UK stronger at home, how we eradicate poverty. Let’s have those big discussions, then let’s debate after the election what happens after the election.’

Mr Murphy, the MP for East Renfrewshire, has been leader of the Labour Party in Scotland for just four months.

He took over in the shadow of the independence referendum in which Labour’s performance took a battering and its former Scottish leader, Johann Lamont, was forced to resign.

Mr Murphy is highly regarded in the party and has tried to run a unity campaign based on tackling poverty and inequality.

But he is grappling with polls suggesting Labour – which won 41 out of Scotland’s 59 seats in 2010 – could lose almost all of its MPs north of the border in May.

Click here for the original article >>>


  1. English nationalists must be hoping that Miliband does a 'dirty deal' with the SNP.

  2. If anyone was in any doubt that the "United" Kingdom was dead, they shouldn't be now. The SNP is all about Scotland, but so is "Scottish" Labour; so are the "Scottish" Conservatives, Liberals et al.
    Salmond wants to borrow a staggering extra 180bn. This same Alex Salmond threatened to repudiate Scotland's share of U.K. debt if he didn't get his way over a currency union.
    Indeed, his M.O. seems to be to threaten in order to get his way. He will prop up a Labour administration, but only on a vote-by-vote basis. In other words, he threatens to veto Miliband's agenda if the aforesaid Miliband fails to dance to his tune.
    With a hung parliament, and in the absence of a formal coaltion, the tiny minority party holding the balance of power is the actual governing party. But it governs in a damagingly negative way - by its ability to veto.
    Clegg and Cameron formed their coalition with the interests of their country (Britain) at heart.
    Salmond will seek to prop up Miliband with the interests of HIS country (Scotland) at heart.(I look after my own. Sod the rest of you!)
    As ever, there will be no-one with the interests of England, at heart.
    My suspician is that his intention is to foment anti-Scottish sentiment in England, with a view to securing another independence referendum, sooner, rather than later.
    Weston super-Mare.

    1. If he props up Miliband with the interests of Scotland at heart and that does foment anti-Scottish sentiment in England that would be to the benefit of English nationalism and the English Democrats.

  3. Personally I agree with the SNP's plan to scrap Trident. But it's no surprise that they plan to sponge away £180bn of, predominantly, English taxpayers money.
    I was grudgingly prepared to advocate a 'left leaning English Democrats' if that was the only way to attract the comatose English. Now we face the prospect of Labour propped up by the SNP with Salmond calling the shots. If that doesn't awaken the English from their slumber, I don't know what will.

    1. Most English people would also like to see the back of the hugely expensive HS2 (high speed rail from London to Manchester). If there is one thing we can't afford as a nation, it's the HS2 vanity project.

    2. I respect your opinion but personally I tend to favour HS2. The fact seems to be that the proponderance of money is in London and the South East and that isn't going to change soon. Whether we like it or not that's the way it is so northerners might as well have a better chance of accessing some of that wealth and of more of it filtering North with a more efficient and faster service. Yes it will cost a lot but it would create good jobs for a number of years. In any case it's also supposed to be about improving capacity on the network which is supposedly at breaking point. I favour scrapping trident because it is outdated technology, it will cost a rediculous amount of money, the Scots will lose a load of jobs ha, and I'm a pacifist.

      This is only my opinion, I could be wrong. I tend to take each issue on its own merits as I see it. We need to get away from the outdated left, right tribal politics. Yourself and anyone else who posts on here knows that. There are signs that this is changing but it seems to be an extremely slow process. The trouble is that the English Democrats seem to be about ten years ahead of where public opinion is at the moment. The England = Britain opinion pervades in the media influenced mind sets of many English people. English people seem blind as to the implications of allowing huge numbers of divergent cultures and religions to take a foothold in this country.
      The trouble is that there is only about a generation before England is changed inexorably. UKIP is a start but they are not ultimately concerned with the interests of England. So I think the English Democrats should focus on promoting a range of policies which it can be said that a broad spectrum of English people agree with and make the most of policies differences with ukip. So the ED's could focus on promoting such policies as the re nationalisation of the railways, train our own NHS workers, keep the NHS in national hands, train our own workers, discipline in schools, the living wage for workers, etc.

  4. It looks like the English Democrats, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru should form a troika, and collaborate to obtain 'independence all round'.

  5. The Chairman's views are all very interesting, but what I want to read is that he and other leading party figures have been campaigning in seats which are key to English Democrats' success, e.g,, in South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. The danger for the party is there will nothing to show except a swathe of lost deposits in seats where the party never had a chance.
    Candidates who are thinking of standing as virtual independents would be better to put their efforts and cash into seats where they would do the most good; rather than into seats where, on the day after the GE, the English Democrats will be forgotten.

  6. It is Nigel Farage’s 51st birthday today (April 3rd). In an interview, he said he would be doing a lot more visible campaigning over the next fortnight.
    "I have been very busy fighting a constituency myself and doing that somewhat below the radar. From next Tuesday, you are going to see me in the West Midlands. in LINCOLNSHIRE, you are going to see me in Cornwall, you are going to see me all over the place. I will be travelling a lot over the next two weeks. I WILL BE OUT ON THE STREET, I WILL BE CAMPAIGNING."
    If Farage is going to be campaigning in Lincolnshire, a county where the sense of Englishness is highest, ED activists and leadership should be there too, challenging him and his anti-English U.K.I.Party.
    The EDs need to concentrate their fire power, e.g., in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and not wear out shoe leather and expend money and resources on constituencies where it will be generations before the party stands a chance, i.e., the Tories' southern heartlands, e.g., Kent, Essex, Hampshire, etc..

  7. The past week or so has seen four different ways to sidestep public opinion in England regarding the EU and a possible in/out referendum. Nick's is to include EU immigrants (who would naturally all vote to stay in,) Dave's is to prentend to negotiate some peripheral tweaks, then tell us all that everything's all right now, so its safe to vote to stay in, Ed's is simply, not to have a referendum, then there can be no chance of our voting the wrong way, and finally, Nicola's; hers is to insist that all components of the UK must separately vote to get out or the entire UK stays in. This way, four million Scottish votes could negate thirty million English votes. Now, that's Democracy - Scottish-style!

  8. Elections come and go. Each time the English Democrats put up all over the country with the result of seemingly little to show for all their efforts.
    I could be wrong but there doesn't appear to be any sort of strategy. Like it or not, at the moment UKIP are seen as the "English" party by many potential English Democrat voters. The media has influenced this but UKIP has also had a strategy to attract the English vote. UKIP are attracting more former Tory voters but disaffected former Labour voters are a bit more sceptical of UKIP. That is the reality at the moment so surely the ED's need to be a bit more realistic as to where votes may come from at the moment. Having a strategy doesn't mean selling your soul and abandoning your principles and ideas. Many of those disaffected Labour voters could be attracted by tailoring and emphasising ED policies which are likely to appeal to them. Elections comes along and it feels as if a massive open goal is there just waiting for the English Democrars to kick the ball into the back of the net but they miss the potential working class vote every time. Each election the open goal is there but the goalkeeper or UKIP gets nearer.

  9. Ukip, with all its resources, has probably overreached itself by going after the Northern working class vote. By tweaking the message to appeal to voters in the North, Ukip has alienated quite a few of its supporters in the South, who have reverted to the Tories.
    Ukip has forgotten the lesson of the Liberal Democrats' success over the last few decades of first establishing themselves in the traditional Liberal stronghold in the South West, which gave them a bridgehead.
    Ukip had been doing just that in the South, but success in the Euro-elections made them cocky and overly ambitious, thinking that traditional Conservative voters in their Southern strongholds were in the bag.
    In the North, Ukip, aided and abetted by the media, has had success in portraying itself as a party for the English in places like Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. It is up to the English Democrats to disabuse Northern voters of that mistaken belief.

    1. The Lib Dems are conducting a strategic retreat to defend their heartlands, in the South West of England and the North of Scotland. They know that they have to regroup and consolidate if they are to make a comeback after this General Election. They are not going to waste money by putting any effort into parts of the country which are not strategic for them.

  10. John,
    There have been times in the past, when there have been by-elections in Northern working class towns when the EDs have not stood candidates. For some reason they seem to prefer to put up candidates in middle class towns like Eastleigh in Hampshire and lose spectacularly.

    1. I don't think it's a question of "putting up candidates". It's one of resources. We don't have millionaire members and backers, so an English Democrats candidates needs, for starters, £500 deposit, or friends who'll help out. Also, LibLabCon come up with wheezes - promises of this-thatand-the-other, each aimed at specific groups of voters. (There's no money to pay for any of them, but, hey!)
      Like Admiral James T. Kirk's nemesis, Khan, we are in a position to grant...nothing. Nothing, that is except attempting to draw the attention of our fellow English to their mis-treatment by the British Elite.
      They're too afraid at present of the upheaval that the necessary changes would engender to consider anything other than the lesser of the two evils. We can but hope that the new evil, outlined above, will awaken them from their slumber and, in the meantime, do what we can, with the resources we have. By the way, Are YOU standing?

    2. Sorry! I meant to sign:

  11. I was amazed the ED's didn't have a candidate in last years by election in Heywood and Middleton. There was a big media profile with the child grooming scandal in the area being a hot issue. UKIP swept up all the profile unopposed and became more established in the media influenced mindset as the voice of the English.
    I agree that it would make sence to become more established in places such as Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. There must be a potential for support in places like Boston. I would extend the area of focus further north to include areas such as West Yorkshire, East Lancashire and Greater Manchester.
    As for the biased media, I was listening to Stephen Nolan's programme on BBC 5 live after the leaders debate the other day. The Northern Irishman Nolan was bemoaning the fact that there was no representation from a Northern Irish perspective such as the DUP. He said the Scots were represented by the SNP, the Welsh were represented by Plaid and the English were represented by UKIP but there was no representation from N. Ireland. Nolan claimed it was another example of the province being completely ignored. Personally, I struggle to see how the English can be represented by a party with 'UK' in its title. There was no attempt to correct Nolan by his co-host John Pienaar. Not surprising when, not many weeks ago, Pienaar himself cut a caller off for saying that the ordinary, white, indigenous people of this country would be in a minority before long. "I think we know where you're coming from" said Pienaar to the caller as he terminated the call.

    1. John wrote,
      "it would make sense to become more established in places such as Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. There must be a potential for support in places like Boston. I would extend the area of focus further north to include areas such as West Yorkshire, East Lancashire and Greater Manchester. "
      It is said that who holds the North holds the English soul.

  12. I know this is a bit off topic but feel that it is important to state it now.

    I have been reading Russia Today and note that there were reports that the UK intelligence services have developed software to rig online polls facebook pages and so on. This is worrying because we do not know the extent to which polls have been rigged but I have noticed that polls are showing that the most uk voters now want to stay in the EU rather than leave. Something is up here. Either the eligibility rules have been changed to allow non british eu citizens the right to vote or massive online polling fraud has taken place.

    In theory I dont object to long term French or German residents voting in a future referendum but I am concerned that millions if resident Poles other east europeans and those whose origins are from the indian subcontinent will be able to vote.

    I really dont think that the UK as it stands will actually vote OUT because of the gerrymandering mentioned above.

    The only way of the EU is now is to breakup the UK first. Only when this happens can we decide who can and cant vote in the referendum. Therefore UKIP is misdirection tool why else is it tolerated by the EU.

    I also note that Russia has backed Argentina over its claims to the Falkland Islands. Well this is to be expected now following the UK governments support of neo nazi rebels in the Ukraine.

    We are hitting a tipping point now and we have to decide now. We either preserve the UK and its overseas territories but lose England in the process or we preserve England and English identity but lose the UK and the overseas colonies. We cannot preserve both now and one must go in order to preseve the other. We all know that the UK government will do ANYTHING to keep the UK together so that can only be done by destroying England.

    As far as I am concerned Gibralta and Falkland Islands should have the right to choose their destiny however the more research I carry out the more I find out that the original inhabitants were thrown out and that worries me. The British establishment is doing that trick again but this time in England.

    I have been told that a lot of Spanish people are moving into Gibralta and are roughly a third of the population well as that number grows so will demands for reunification with Spain and another sovereignty referendum will have to be carried out.

    Let these places choose their destiny but also let us choose ours. The UK is now the biggest threat to England far greater than the EU itself.

    We are going to have to consider the possibility of English independence but within the EU for a short period until we finally get round to deciding who is eligible to vote and who is not.

    The UK must be destroyed first before we can even consider leaving the EU because the original mass immigration floodgates and race laws happened before we joined the EEC in 1973. Blaming the EU is the elites subtle misdirection tactic to divert blame away from themselves.


  13. Hi its Francis again.. I am adding to my most recent comment about Russian support for Argentinian claims over the Falkland islands.

    We I am sure that the UN will force the UK to allow Argentinians the right to live and settle on the islands. With only 2000 islanders resident mostly of British origins 2500 Argentinians could move in

    1. Thanks to stupid Cameron, Russia has chosen to supply the Argies

    2. To me the Falklands and Gibraltar are solely of construct, interest and concern of the UK. I don't see what benefit England gains from these constant strained international relations with Spain and Argentina, etc. There can't be more than a few thousand people in the Falklands. Ok so there might be oil but is it worth all the aggrevation? England has enough resources to easily be energy self sufficient given the chance.
      We should just defend our own shores (without the aid of nuclear warheads imo) and keep out of other people's conflics. An independant England could achieve this. The UK does the complete opposite by inviting the worlds people here and then attacking their spiritual homelands.
      Mr Tilbrook was recently interviewed by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics. "The break up of the UK would mean and end to our NATO top seat" explained an emotional Neil in exasperation. When Mr Tilbrook calmly acknowledged that that would be the case Neil was left bemused and angry at the prospect.

    3. We must remember that Gibralta was once Spanish and the irony is many Spaniards are moving into Gibralta. Tge UK talks about sovereignty but that is a double edged sword. Eventually the Spanish will becone the majority and as EU citizens can now vote in referendums it will go.

      On the other I am not sure if tge Falklands were ever Argentinian however I think the original inhabitants may be of Chillian origin so perhaps Chile has a stronger claim.

      Russia is simply outsmarting the UK and again I cannot see how the FI will remain an overseas territory. I dont think Argentina will reinvade the islands but I do think they have a better chance using Russia via the UN.

      We should remember that it was Russia who enabled Scottish and Welsh devolution in the first place with Labour taking the credit.

      Russia is our only ally and sadly I think it is time to make contact with them.

      If the UK loses its UN seat or top place st NATO then so be it. The UK has punched above its weight for too long often making the wrong decisions or taking the wrong sides is it any wonder why the Scots nearly voted to leave in September.

      The UK signs up to conventions then does a U turn and denies its own citizens basis rights. We won the 1982 Falklands campaign because we were homogenous enough and still had enough pride to fight. This time will be different. Argentina doesnt need to invade so no lives will be lost however Chile is probably the only country that coukd actually claim the FI. If they succeed the domino effect will spread.


    4. John

      I agree The FI and Gibraltar are of interest to the ruling elites however I think Gibraltar will change hands first.

      Following the 2007 UN convention covering the rights of indigenous peoples these territories are now up for grabs. Gibraltar was Spanish and its original inhabitants were Spanish. Due to freedom of movement within the EU the Spanish are moving in to Gibraltar on masse so I think they will become the majority again which will lead to a referendum which they will probably win. Our elites wont be able to do anything about it and they know it.


    5. Francis, if as you say Chile has a claim to the Falklands, maybe it would be for the best for the the Brits to leave and allow the Chileans and Argentines to fight it out amongst themselves. Maybe England could use the 2007 UN convention covering the rights of indigenous peoples to claim back control of its territory from the UK, ha.

    6. The Falklands are 250 miles east of the South American mainland. Chile can't have much of a claim. Britain claimed the islands in the 16th century. The French took possession of the eastern island in the mid 18th century and set up a settlement. Spain bought it from the French. Britain reasserted itself, The settlement was claimed for the Republic of Buenos Aires in 1829. After a conflict between the Argentinians and the USA, Britain ejected the Argentinian garrison and resumed control in 1833. Argentina's claim is based on an illegal 4 year occupation.
      The population has a large Scandinavian element.

    7. When, not if, the UK breaks up it would be prudent for England to offer the Falkland Islanders a protective wing. After all both the UK and England are bankrupt so potential Falkland Island oil revenues could come in handy.

  14. The Tories are getting their knickers in a twist over Nicola Sturgeon's pledge on Trident, but what is it for? It is not defending us from anything. We have been taken over by a foreign power without a shot being fired and the English nation is being swept away by those same Tory globalists who fetishise Trident.

  15. What a terrible Waste of North West chairman Stephen Morris to put him up in Monmouthshire. He would have been better standing in Greater Manchester which would, alongside Valerie Morris, have raised the party's profile in the North West, building on the party's comparative strength in neighbouring Yorkshire. The lack of any candidates in Lincolnshire is disappointing.

    1. Who holds the North holds the English soul.

    2. It will be interesting to see who gets the better result, Stephen Morris in Monmouth or Valerie Morris in Bury South.

    3. Steve, It is not a matter of which Morris does better. Stephen Morris might do better in Greater Manchester than in Monmouthshire, which is speculation, but that is not the point, either way. The party has to build a base, and it won't do that from Monmouthshire.

    4. Party bases are built at local level during local elections. For parties such as the English Democrats national elections are an opportunity for publicity and raising profiles.
      If Stephen Morris has an outside chance of beating PC in Monmouth it is worth taking that chance. Coming ahead of PC in the poll would be more likely to raise the English Democrats' profile than beating the Green Party or the TUSC somewhere in Greater Manchester.

    5. Steve,
      The point remains that the party base will not be built in Monmouthshire, but across the belt including Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.