Keep Right On to The End of The Road, Dave
What a splendid fellow David Cameron is and how proud his parents must be, having spent so much money educating their wee laddie, to see him assiduously kissing kilted arse and thereby kissing goodbye to any chance he might have had of calling No 10 'home'. Somewhat risibly, given the highly offensive remarks about us that he made to an audience in Glasgow on Friday, Cameron claims to be proud to be English, despite making sure that Andrew Marr and the rest of the London based Jockerati know that he has Scotch blood (his father was born in Aberdeenshire), but the 'suspension of disbelief' required in Grooovey Dave's Popularity Poll Politics 'Tory-Lite' Theatre is beyond the abilities of WG.
It's not at all difficult to understand that the quintessentially British Cameron, as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, is anxious to increase its abysmally low electoral standing in the little nations of the 'union', and indulging the Celtic tendency to self-pity, covetous envy and rabid Anglophobia is certainly one possible way of doing so. However, to accuse the other 85% of the 'U'K population of 'ignorance' because, presumably, we complain that we are denied life saving drugs, purely on the grounds of cost, that are freely available to the heavily over-subsidised peoples of Scotland and Wales; that, thanks to the distortion of democracy in England by the participation of unaccountable Scotch and Welsh MPs in English affairs, our students must pay top-up fees; that our elderly must sell their homes if they require residential health care while English taxes pay for free care for Scotland's elderly and free prescriptions for the people of Wales; that the now non-national NHS must close half the A&E departments in England while the Scotch NHS can purchase two fixed wing air ambulances, thanks entirely to the English tax payer, is simply insulting and demonstrates nothing so clearly as a profound contempt for the English electorate and breathtaking political ineptitude of suicidal magnitude.
Doubtless, Cameron's remarks will be claimed to have been taken 'out of context' but they were made to much the same audience and in much the same setting as the speech in which the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the bibulous Charles Kennedy, made his observations on Scotch schadenfreude. Can it be doubted, therefore, that they were intended to appeal to precisely the same insular sentiments? Why otherwise make them? Politicians of Scotch origin invariably demonstrate that they are incapable of viewing the world other than through tartan tinted spectacles and the speeches of Brown, Cameron and Kennedy suggest an outlook that is laughably parochial, and that thinks of Scotland not as an equal partner in a union based on respect but as a distinct political and cultural entity within which Anglophobic sentiments may be expressed with impunity, safe perhaps in the delusion that the Scotch dominated, London based British media will 'sanitise' its reports for English consumption.
The Scotch have never been big enough to abandon themselves to the embrace of 'Britishness' in the way that the English once happily did. As a small, insecure and self-regarding people overshadowed by, and bitterly envious of, a much larger and more successful (because more outward looking) neighbour they need the security blanket that is their 'Scottishness'. Too often, and increasingly of late, this has been expressed as little more than an, often violent (and ultimately self-defeating), antipathy to Englishness that is increasingly apparent to us. Consequently, and understandably, our affection for the Scotch is rapidly diminishing and they have only themselves to blame.
It is, therefore, Scotch ignorance of the English, and not vice versa, that has doomed the 'union', for it can only be in profound ignorance of the English that anyone can expect us blithely to continue stoically to endure mockery, crude abuse and physical assault from Scots (and others within the 'United' Kingdom) whilst at the same time unthinkingly accepting what are, to all but the most obtuse, cynical or deceitful, the self-evidently absurd and mutually contradictory arguments used to justify the current constitutional arrangements following devolution. It is only in profound ignorance of the English that a Scot could argue that although the people of Scotland have aims, ambitions, aspirations and interests so markedly different from those of the rest of the 'U'K they require a government solely of their own choosing, in which the people of England cannot participate, the latter do not, and that such essential differences do not, in any way, destroy the sense of common purpose and shared aims, ambitions and interests that constitute a healthy and secure union. Those who advance such arguments indulge in the most transparent doublespeak and it is more than a little disingenuous to beat us with the stick of 'ignorance' simply because we refuse to accept them.
It isn't difficult to see Cameron's remarks for what they are; no more than a pathetic attempt to advance the fortunes of a party that has long been frustrated by its continuing political impotence, especially in Scotland, where it is irrelevant, and it isn't difficult to understand that the situation must be no small source of embarrassment for a party styling itself 'unionist'. The possibility exists that the Conservatives have no future in Scotland and that, of itself, calls into question the party's 'reason for being'. Even Lord Rees-Mogg has lifted his chin from his chest and raised his voice above the chorus of snores from the Lords' benches. In 'This Disunited Kingdom', the noble lord recognises both that 'the Conservative Party is becoming more and more the English party' and that 'if they are to win an overall majority ... they will plainly have to do it in England.' Apart from two minor but very obvious points (the Conservative party became (point i) an, not 'the', (point ii) English party nine years ago) this is a promising start but Rees-Mogg subsequently fails to demonstrate that he has any understanding of the issues. Indeed if he really believes the simplistic arguments he advances against the creation of an English Parliament he demonstrates nothing other than his complete inability, or perhaps wilful refusal, to accept the reality of devolution. His stance is the traditional unionist one of 'if we address the undeniable democratic deficit, and consequent position of political disadvantage that has been created for the people of England by devolution, we shall upset the Scotch, and then whither the union?' He does not seem to have grasped that the 'union' is withering anyway.
He makes some weak points that are nevertheless illustrative of his thinking and are thus of interest to English nationalists. Firstly, and most importantly, he offers as the princpal obstacle to the establishment of an English Parliament the overwhelming preponderance of the the people of England within the 'union'. An English parliament would, he says, 'swamp the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.' He continues that it 'might become the dominant Parliament of the United Kingdom'. This argument is so absurd, and so easily refuted that it is not unreasonable to question the fitness of anyone who advances it to occupy a seat in either house at Westminster. Rees-Mogg seems not to understand that, like its Scotch counterpart, an English Parliament would have authority only in matters devolved to it, that is purely English affairs. It would have no authority in matters reserved to the 'U'K Parliament, in which England MPs would continue to enjoy the overwhelming preponderance, a situation that has not been addressed by devolution and which the Scotch electorate seems happy to accept. Within the context of the 'U'K an English parliament could never swamp those of Scotland or Wales and it is wholly unacceptable to suggest that 85% of the population should continue to suffer from the distortion of democracy and subsequent position of political disadvantage that is created for them by the participation of MPs who are not accountable to them, purely for the benefit of the remaining 15%
Secondly he alludes to Scotch sensitivities to the 'balance of power', but as remarked above, except for those demanding independence, Scots do not seem to be unduly concerned that MPs representing English constituencies in the 'U'K Parliament are overwhelmingly in the majority.
His third point concerns attempts at regionalisation in England and is significant for its explicit recognition that England is a single nation. 'Great Britain' he says 'is three nations joined in one, not a collection of regions.'
Point four is as absurd as the first, and is worth quoting in full: 'The English may continue to accept the advantages that devolution has given Scotland as the price England has to pay for the United Kingdom or as a counterbalance for the power England enjoys as the largest nation within it. Scotland may end up by preferring to deal with London - the devil they know - rather than substitute Brussels for London.'
For the first premise to hold good would require the people of England to believe that the 'union' is such a wonderful state in which to exist that a higher retirement age and taxes than Scotland, lower standards of health than Scotland and an early death from diseases that are curable in Scotland, using drugs paid for with English money, are acceptable. Lord Rees-Mogg must hold the people of England in some contempt if he believes that we will tolerate a relationship that not only brings us no benefits but actually places us in a position of severe disadvantage. The second premise merely confirms that for unionists, the wishes of the Scotch are paramount. Notwithstanding, the arguments in favour of Scotch independence revolve around swapping one set of subsidies (English) for another (European).
Rees-Mogg concludes the piece by recognising that there are 'inequities in our present constitutional arrangement' but asserts that they may never be resolved, which suggests that he is little, if at all, concerned about the situation. The Conservative and Unionist Party has never been a hotbed of intellectual radicalism and it's unrealistic to expect any really dynamic efforts from it to offer the people of England the only practical solution to the present disadvantageous constitutional position created by the ill thought out constitutional meddling of Tony Blair's Labour government.
David Cameron's speech in Glasgow demonstrates that the Conservatives have nothing to offer the people of Scotland and Lord Rees-Mogg's confused and illogical ramblings confirm that they will offer nothing to England, until they must. The largest mainstream political party in England has insulted and turned it's back on the people of England in the pursuit of a relative handful of votes from an electorate that has unequivocally rejected them.
English nationalists must ensure that when the time comes the people of England are reminded of that and other things.
Click Here
It's not at all difficult to understand that the quintessentially British Cameron, as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, is anxious to increase its abysmally low electoral standing in the little nations of the 'union', and indulging the Celtic tendency to self-pity, covetous envy and rabid Anglophobia is certainly one possible way of doing so. However, to accuse the other 85% of the 'U'K population of 'ignorance' because, presumably, we complain that we are denied life saving drugs, purely on the grounds of cost, that are freely available to the heavily over-subsidised peoples of Scotland and Wales; that, thanks to the distortion of democracy in England by the participation of unaccountable Scotch and Welsh MPs in English affairs, our students must pay top-up fees; that our elderly must sell their homes if they require residential health care while English taxes pay for free care for Scotland's elderly and free prescriptions for the people of Wales; that the now non-national NHS must close half the A&E departments in England while the Scotch NHS can purchase two fixed wing air ambulances, thanks entirely to the English tax payer, is simply insulting and demonstrates nothing so clearly as a profound contempt for the English electorate and breathtaking political ineptitude of suicidal magnitude.
Doubtless, Cameron's remarks will be claimed to have been taken 'out of context' but they were made to much the same audience and in much the same setting as the speech in which the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the bibulous Charles Kennedy, made his observations on Scotch schadenfreude. Can it be doubted, therefore, that they were intended to appeal to precisely the same insular sentiments? Why otherwise make them? Politicians of Scotch origin invariably demonstrate that they are incapable of viewing the world other than through tartan tinted spectacles and the speeches of Brown, Cameron and Kennedy suggest an outlook that is laughably parochial, and that thinks of Scotland not as an equal partner in a union based on respect but as a distinct political and cultural entity within which Anglophobic sentiments may be expressed with impunity, safe perhaps in the delusion that the Scotch dominated, London based British media will 'sanitise' its reports for English consumption.
The Scotch have never been big enough to abandon themselves to the embrace of 'Britishness' in the way that the English once happily did. As a small, insecure and self-regarding people overshadowed by, and bitterly envious of, a much larger and more successful (because more outward looking) neighbour they need the security blanket that is their 'Scottishness'. Too often, and increasingly of late, this has been expressed as little more than an, often violent (and ultimately self-defeating), antipathy to Englishness that is increasingly apparent to us. Consequently, and understandably, our affection for the Scotch is rapidly diminishing and they have only themselves to blame.
It is, therefore, Scotch ignorance of the English, and not vice versa, that has doomed the 'union', for it can only be in profound ignorance of the English that anyone can expect us blithely to continue stoically to endure mockery, crude abuse and physical assault from Scots (and others within the 'United' Kingdom) whilst at the same time unthinkingly accepting what are, to all but the most obtuse, cynical or deceitful, the self-evidently absurd and mutually contradictory arguments used to justify the current constitutional arrangements following devolution. It is only in profound ignorance of the English that a Scot could argue that although the people of Scotland have aims, ambitions, aspirations and interests so markedly different from those of the rest of the 'U'K they require a government solely of their own choosing, in which the people of England cannot participate, the latter do not, and that such essential differences do not, in any way, destroy the sense of common purpose and shared aims, ambitions and interests that constitute a healthy and secure union. Those who advance such arguments indulge in the most transparent doublespeak and it is more than a little disingenuous to beat us with the stick of 'ignorance' simply because we refuse to accept them.
It isn't difficult to see Cameron's remarks for what they are; no more than a pathetic attempt to advance the fortunes of a party that has long been frustrated by its continuing political impotence, especially in Scotland, where it is irrelevant, and it isn't difficult to understand that the situation must be no small source of embarrassment for a party styling itself 'unionist'. The possibility exists that the Conservatives have no future in Scotland and that, of itself, calls into question the party's 'reason for being'. Even Lord Rees-Mogg has lifted his chin from his chest and raised his voice above the chorus of snores from the Lords' benches. In 'This Disunited Kingdom', the noble lord recognises both that 'the Conservative Party is becoming more and more the English party' and that 'if they are to win an overall majority ... they will plainly have to do it in England.' Apart from two minor but very obvious points (the Conservative party became (point i) an, not 'the', (point ii) English party nine years ago) this is a promising start but Rees-Mogg subsequently fails to demonstrate that he has any understanding of the issues. Indeed if he really believes the simplistic arguments he advances against the creation of an English Parliament he demonstrates nothing other than his complete inability, or perhaps wilful refusal, to accept the reality of devolution. His stance is the traditional unionist one of 'if we address the undeniable democratic deficit, and consequent position of political disadvantage that has been created for the people of England by devolution, we shall upset the Scotch, and then whither the union?' He does not seem to have grasped that the 'union' is withering anyway.
He makes some weak points that are nevertheless illustrative of his thinking and are thus of interest to English nationalists. Firstly, and most importantly, he offers as the princpal obstacle to the establishment of an English Parliament the overwhelming preponderance of the the people of England within the 'union'. An English parliament would, he says, 'swamp the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.' He continues that it 'might become the dominant Parliament of the United Kingdom'. This argument is so absurd, and so easily refuted that it is not unreasonable to question the fitness of anyone who advances it to occupy a seat in either house at Westminster. Rees-Mogg seems not to understand that, like its Scotch counterpart, an English Parliament would have authority only in matters devolved to it, that is purely English affairs. It would have no authority in matters reserved to the 'U'K Parliament, in which England MPs would continue to enjoy the overwhelming preponderance, a situation that has not been addressed by devolution and which the Scotch electorate seems happy to accept. Within the context of the 'U'K an English parliament could never swamp those of Scotland or Wales and it is wholly unacceptable to suggest that 85% of the population should continue to suffer from the distortion of democracy and subsequent position of political disadvantage that is created for them by the participation of MPs who are not accountable to them, purely for the benefit of the remaining 15%
Secondly he alludes to Scotch sensitivities to the 'balance of power', but as remarked above, except for those demanding independence, Scots do not seem to be unduly concerned that MPs representing English constituencies in the 'U'K Parliament are overwhelmingly in the majority.
His third point concerns attempts at regionalisation in England and is significant for its explicit recognition that England is a single nation. 'Great Britain' he says 'is three nations joined in one, not a collection of regions.'
Point four is as absurd as the first, and is worth quoting in full: 'The English may continue to accept the advantages that devolution has given Scotland as the price England has to pay for the United Kingdom or as a counterbalance for the power England enjoys as the largest nation within it. Scotland may end up by preferring to deal with London - the devil they know - rather than substitute Brussels for London.'
For the first premise to hold good would require the people of England to believe that the 'union' is such a wonderful state in which to exist that a higher retirement age and taxes than Scotland, lower standards of health than Scotland and an early death from diseases that are curable in Scotland, using drugs paid for with English money, are acceptable. Lord Rees-Mogg must hold the people of England in some contempt if he believes that we will tolerate a relationship that not only brings us no benefits but actually places us in a position of severe disadvantage. The second premise merely confirms that for unionists, the wishes of the Scotch are paramount. Notwithstanding, the arguments in favour of Scotch independence revolve around swapping one set of subsidies (English) for another (European).
Rees-Mogg concludes the piece by recognising that there are 'inequities in our present constitutional arrangement' but asserts that they may never be resolved, which suggests that he is little, if at all, concerned about the situation. The Conservative and Unionist Party has never been a hotbed of intellectual radicalism and it's unrealistic to expect any really dynamic efforts from it to offer the people of England the only practical solution to the present disadvantageous constitutional position created by the ill thought out constitutional meddling of Tony Blair's Labour government.
David Cameron's speech in Glasgow demonstrates that the Conservatives have nothing to offer the people of Scotland and Lord Rees-Mogg's confused and illogical ramblings confirm that they will offer nothing to England, until they must. The largest mainstream political party in England has insulted and turned it's back on the people of England in the pursuit of a relative handful of votes from an electorate that has unequivocally rejected them.
English nationalists must ensure that when the time comes the people of England are reminded of that and other things.
posted by William Gruff at 9/17/2006 01:12:00 PM
3 Comments:
I'd say that was telling it like it is with no side salad or relish to sweeten up the dish for the ignorant political elites.
There's just one thing I would like to add. Britain cannot possibly survive devolution, therefore some 9 years into the experiment, England's democratic settlement is fast becoming a matter of urgency and should not be treated as an after-thought. That is, when the British government can be bothered to think about it at all.
Saw your blog, thought I'd comment.
First off I'm a Scot and a nationalist, ever since I could start voting, 35 years ago.
Before I start commenting on your posting I have to say I have been looking at quite a lot of stuff on the web and in the papers and the level of ignorance, xenophobia, lunacy and sheer bile is quite scary. Try a debate based on facts and aspirations rather than misinformation, over the top rhetoric and the 'they've got one so we want one too' school of childish envy.
O.K.onto your posting. Quite a lot of this stuff has obviously been sparked off by David Cameron’s recent speech and I'll comment on that as we go along.
We may be one of the 'little nations of the union', a good example of your contempt for the non English countries of the union, but we are not self pitying, envious or rabid Anglophobics ' All these descriptions would be better reversed and applied to yourself and a lot of other Englishmen I have read.
David Cameron makes the point of English people being ignorant of the Scots and Scotland. He's right and I've seen plenty of evidence of that over the years as I've travelled around England on business.
What you and others of your ilk have to understand are two main things. Firstly the English are not being denied things like free prescriptions, free care for the elderly, which only applies to nursing care by the way, the biggest cost is residential care, and no top up fees, by the Scots or the Welsh. We have to fight closures of A&E departments too and our elderly are as likely to have to sell their homes as yours to pay for care.
Secondly the English taxpayer isn’t paying for any of it quite the opposite. There is a widespread belief fostered by the politically motivated that the English subsidise the Scots and somehow you are paying for the benefits you describe in your blog.
The fact is that the Executives in Scotland and Wales have a given sum of money allocated to them to spend on those affairs that are devolved to them. The Scots for example have no top up fees for students and free nursing care for the elderly and the Welsh have free prescriptions because that is the policy of the ruling political parties. Everything has to be funded from a fixed budget and it is up to the executive to decide how to spend it. We don’t get anything extra from that nice Mr Brown to pay for it. If you want the same in England vote for those that will give you it.
So what about the money then? Let me quote from Mr Cameron’s speech. ‘ There’s another grievance held by those in England who seek to dismember Britain. They want to end the Barnett formula. Politicians like Ken Livingstone regard the Scots as subsidy junkies who get far more of the national pot than they are entitled to. Again, I’m sorry – it’s more complicated than that. Other areas within the UK are more heavily subsidised than Scotland is’.
That from an English Tory leader! But again he is right. You’ll find many economists who can argue that the Barnett formula is actually bad for Scotland. But does it matter? The reason Scotland receives more per head, an extremely crude way to measure anything, is because Scotland is poorer than most parts of the UK and has a more extreme geography. But as Mr Cameron points out there are other areas that receive more, and why not? If more money is needed in one area as opposed to another it should be allocated whether that is a region of England or a country like Scotland.
And what your argument and every other English commentator’s argument I’ve read fails to take into account is this. On average, per head, Scotland receives about £1,250 more. However the amount of tax produced per head from all sources is £4,000 per head more from Scotland.
So we actually contribute a lot more than we get back. So Scotland subsidies England, not the other way round. And unlike your assertion the Scots are not parochial and have always had a more open and outward looking view of the world. This is only to be expected of a small nation. It is people like you and politicians of all colours and creeds who are inward looking and concerned only with self interest.
As for an English parliament I don’t necessarily agree with Rees-Mogg that it would swamp a Scottish parliament but it would swamp a UK parliament. Already there are calls within Scotland for more power for the Scottish parliament. I don’t believe for a second that an English parliament would be content with only the powers that the Scottish parliament currently enjoys. An English parliament means the end of the union without doubt. What would a UK Parliament be left to do?
Why bother with a separate English parliament when de facto you have had one all along. English MPs outnumber the Scots by 9:1 and the combined MPs of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland by 4.5:1.What can an English parliament deliver that a UK one can’t for England? Who are the English going to devolve from? Themselves? We have devolution for Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland precisely because England is so much bigger than the others. It can never be a union of equals.
Make up your mind that either you accept that it is just and fair for the smaller countries to have a greater say over their own affairs when part of a union with a much larger dominant partner or you decide to go it alone and break the union. Suits me. Scotland will do great on her own. It is the English who have got far more to worry about. Shorn of North Sea oil, Scotlands tax base and natural resources, riven with political, social and racial division, sinking under the weight of your own population and failing public services it is England that is going to struggle.
It is not you as you opine ‘Scotch ignorance of the English, and not vice versa, that has doomed the union’ it is the misinformed, ignorant , Scotophobic sentiments of certain of the English people that will really be the catalyst for the end of the union. It is ironic that it will probably be the English/British who will decide the fate of the union rather than the Scots.
By the way if you are so fond of England why don’t you move there and leave occupied Scottish land?
Regards
Ken
Ken posted ... a load of bigoted, anti-english hogwash, of the type we've come to expect from all too many Scots.
A simple question, Ken - if you're a Scottish nationalist, why are you trying to sell the benefits of the union on an English blog?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home