Scotland: ‘Pound is as much ours as it is yours’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
They'll only secede if they decide to do that on September 18th.
And, barring a miracle, they won't.
The SNP, unlike UKIP, are NOT a true nationalist party because they wish an "independent" Scotland to become a new Member State of the EU. In other words, like the Irish have done, they just want to swap rule from London to rule from Brussels, because they genuinely don't believe Scotland can stand on its own two feet as a genuinely independent country and want Brussels calling the shots rather than London.
UKIP, wanting UK to secede from the EU, are a genuine nationalist party.
Nationalist parties aside, do you have any patriotic ones too?
You do have a point there. If you're going to share a common currency, you can't be completely sovereign too. At the very least, you'd have to have some agreements in place to make it workable.
What's the difference between a nationalist party and a patriotic party? I can't see any difference.
The UK has a plethora of patriotic parties, whether for the UK as a whole or for each of its four nations.
UK patriotic parties include UKIP, BNP, National Front, Britain First, British Democratic Party (BDP) and Liberty GB.
Britain First, led by Paul Golding, campaigns primarily against mass immigration and against what it sees as the Islamification of the United Kingdom, instead advocating Christian social conservatism. The group is influenced by Ulster loyalism and has a vigilante wing called the "Britain First Defence Force". It rose to prominence by taking direct action such as protests outside homes of Islamists, and what it describes as "Christian patrols" and "invasions" of British mosques. The party also favours British withdrawal from the EU. It was founded by Jim Dowson, an anti-abortion campaigner linked to Ulster loyalist militants.
Britain First - Taking our country back!
The British Democratic Party, led by Anthony Reed Herbert, is a political party launched in 2013 in a village hall in Leicestershire by a ten-member steering committee including Andrew Brons MEP, a former member of the British National Party (BNP) who had been a leading member of the National Front (NF), and a number of others with a history of membership in fascist and neo-Nazi groups, who believed that the BNP had been corrupted and watered-down.
British Democratic Party
Liberty GB were formed by Paul Weston and George Whale in 2013.
Weston is a former UK Independence Party (UKIP) member and was one of the party's candidates in Cities of London and Westminster at the 2010 general election. He left UKIP over what he described as its failure to address issues around Islam in Britain and founded the British Freedom Party (BFP). That party formed an alliance with the English Defence League (EDL). Weston left the BFP in 2013. He has predicted that within 20 years there will be a war in Britain between the white working class and immigrants. He is married to a Romanian migrant and claims to have been a deep sea diver, a pilot in Africa and a property developer in the Czech Republic.
Liberty GB is anti-immigration, anti-fundamentalist Islam and traditionalist.The group's Facebook page describes it as "patriotic counter-jihad party for Christian civilisation, Western rights and freedoms, British culture, animal welfare and capitalism".
Liberty GB site: Liberty GB - Welcome to Liberty GB
Scotland has, of course, the SNP.
Wales' main nationalist party is Plaid Cymru ("Party of Wales"), led by Leanne Wood, which advocates an "independent" Wales within the European Union (no country is truly an independent sovereign state within the EU) and therefore, like SNP but unlike UKIP, is NOT a true nationalist party.
Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales
England has the English Democrats, which are England's equivalent to Salmond's SNP. The English Democrats, whose leader is Robin Tilbrook, want England to break away from the UK and become an independent nation state. Unlike the pro-EU SNP, the English Democrats are a TRUE nationalist party as they want to give England an EU in/out referendum in which they would campaign to leave the EU.
English Democrats - The Official Democratic Party of England
Northern Ireland has Irish republican party Sinn Féin
Even some counties and other areas have their own nationalist parties. Mebyon Kernow ("Sons of Cornwall" in Cornish), led by Dick Cole, wants devolution for Cornwall but within England in the form of a Cornish Assembly, just as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were given their own assemblies (but not, disgustingly, England) in 1999.
https://www.mebyonkernow.org/
Yorkshire First, set up this year, led by Richard Carter, wants a regional assembly (again, just as Scotland, Wales and NI have) for Yorkshire but within England.
Yorkshire First | The Party for Yorkshire
The Wessex Regionalist Party, led by Colin Bex, is a minor political party that seeks a degree of legislative and administrative home rule for Wessex an area in the south and south-west of England, loosely based on the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of that name.
Wessex Regionalists
Last edited:
To me, nationalism is nothing more than arrogant chest beating and believing in national superiority. Patriotism is simply love for one's country, nothing more or less.
Patriotism - a devoted love, support, and defence of one’s country; national loyalty.
Nationalism -
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Duel that ignored the hard questions: MAX HASTINGS delivers his forthright verdict on last night's Scottish independence debate
This was billed as the Great Debate between Scotland’s First Minister and the former chancellor and standard-bearer for the No campaign, Alistair Darling.
In truth it turned into the Big Silence night, with neither side confronting the real issues and harsh realities about the future of an independent Scotland.
Alex Salmond called on Scots to seize the ‘opportunity’ of independence with both hands. Alistair Darling urged them to reject it, but did not dare to say frankly to his audience: an independent Scotland will be Iceland without the fish, a dependency culture without visible means of support, a basket case bobbing on the remotest beach of Europe.
He had to renounce such arguments, because Salmond mocks the No campaign as ‘Project Fear’; because polls show that Scottish pride is affronted if anybody reminds them how meagre is their income tax base, how feeble is entrepreneurialism north of the border, how drugged on state subsidy their nation has become.
Salmond, one of the most skilful politicians in Britain, handled himself brilliantly. His pronouncements, from the Vladimir Putin school of statesmanship, are delivered with wonderful fluency, heedless of their polarisation from truth. He emphasised again and again the Norwegian model for an independent Scotland, saying nothing of the fact that Norway has vastly more oil and fewer people and it isn't in the EU.
He flatly contradicted Alistair Darling’s assertion that Scotland could not expect to share a common currency with England, saying ‘everything will change in the negotiation if we get a yes vote’. He repeated doggedly again and again: ‘The pound belongs to Scotland as much as to England’, which means nothing.
Salmond challenged Darling to dispute a rash aside of David Cameron’s in which the Prime Minister said that Scotland could be a successful independent country. He said: ‘We want to end austerity and the pressure on public services’, ignoring the fact that every country in the world confronts the necessity to cut spending.
Tactically, Darling was usually talking sense and Salmond nonsense, but the ex-Chancellor – perhaps the only man to have emerged from service in the Blair-Brown governments with an enhanced reputation – often seemed on the wrong foot.
Salmond spoke as if his country was Saudi Arabia and its only problem how to spend vast natural wealth
Nowhere in the debate, whether from the platform, the floor or the so-called expert commentators, were hard questions asked about how Scotland would support itself as an independent country. Salmond asserted that the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies and Office for Budget Responsibility are simply arms of the Westminster government, which deceive Scots by noticing that the North Sea oil take is shrinking fast. He also rejected the IFS calculation that there is a £6billion black hole in SNP spending plans for an independent Scotland.
He spoke as if his country was Saudi Arabia, its only problem how to spend vast natural wealth.
The audience asked questions about pensions, university tuition fees, public services – again, always issues related to spending money, rather than earning it. Salmond declared his pride that the Scottish government has ‘invested’ £50million in saving his people from the English bedroom tax, as if that money would yield a cash profit.
He said that he has done the sums, to show that an independent Scotland could increase public spending by more than 2 per cent. But nowhere did he explain just what taxes the Scottish people will pay, to fund all this largesse.
Close to the surface in the debate, as throughout the campaign, was a shaft of disdain, if not hatred, for the English.
Salmond taunted Darling, that he seemed to feel a need constantly to assert his own pride in being Scottish – the implication being that under the skin, the former chancellor is an English quisling.
Darling scored a point that deserved to hit home, by saying that if Scotland had been on its own during the 2007-8 banking crisis, it would have ended up a basket case – though he dared not use that exact phrase – like Iceland or Ireland. He emphasised another relevant fact: Scotland’s working age – in other words, taxpaying – population is falling faster than that of the rest of the UK.
The No campaign’s problem is that it must indeed rely on the counsel of fear – or prudence, as some of us would say, and Darling should have done last night.
But Salmond is promoting a vision. This is no more believable to rational people than Mary Poppins, but it sounds seductive to fantasists, of whom there are a few million in Scotland’s Central Belt.
Last night he said: ‘No one will do a better job of running Scotland than the people who live and work in this country.’ The evidence suggests that this is piffle, given Scotland’s modern record, but again Alistair Darling did not dare to contradict the First Minister.
Whichever way the vote goes on September 18, last night’s debate did nothing to advance anybody’s stock of knowledge, not least because Scotland’s broadcasters, as represented on air, are too craven to ask the hard questions.
An independent Scotland of five million people can go it alone only if 55million other citizens of the UK are generous enough to go on picking up most of Alex Salmond’s bills.
But that did not get said last night, either.
Read more: Duel that ignored the hard questions: MAX HASTINGS delivers his forthright verdict on last night's Scottish independence debate | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
*****************************************
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
*****************************************
VIEWPOINT: Why Alex Salmond is deluded... Vote against political union is also a vote against currency union
Sir Andrew Large is former deputy governor of the Bank of England and Sir Martin Jacomb is the former chairman of Prudential
Successful partnerships or unions depend on give and take. Political unions provide for this. Money raised from taxpayers can then be transferred to wherever in the union needs it: in bad times and good, and over time. Our Union, as the UK including Scotland, has worked like that pretty well over the past 300 years.
One element of a political union is common money, underpinned by a currency union. That’s why we all have the pound.
The money we use matters to us all. It must be universally accepted in payment; prices must be stable. And crises like 2008 must not undermine it.
Scotland's First Minister: Alex Salmond
So Mr Salmond’s claim that if Scotland votes ‘Yes’ there will be no change for Scotland’s money is a delusion at best. A vote against political union is also effectively a vote against currency union.
The Scottish Nationalists think that the three political parties who rule out a currency union are bluffing. But why would the rest of the UK wish to support Scotland with their taxpayers’ money?
Claims that it is in the UK’s interests to continue the currency union forget the potentially open ended longer-term commitments: whatever the short-term trade benefits.
And to insist that Scotland would be stronger than the UK is not self-evident.
The lessons are there in the European Union. The UK rejected the euro because we knew this needed political union.
Monday View: Sir Martin Jacomb is the former chairman of Prudential
The euro’s difficulties won’t be overcome until that can be achieved. It’s not there yet, and the lack of political union today prevents wealth transfers where needed: resulting in mass unemployment in Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Of course Scotland has other options. They all involve change, and risk. Scottish nationalists may feel the risks are worth it. But they need to know what they would be.
Scotland could continue to use the pound but with no formal agreement with the rest of the UK.
Some small countries do this: Kosovo uses the euro, Panama the US dollar and Jersey the pound.
The consequence for the Scots would be that they would have no say over monetary policy. The rest of the UK would issue the pound, and look first to its own interests, not Scotland’s.
Another consequence is that banknotes issued by Scottish banks could be in jeopardy. Today these are equivalent to Bank of England notes, but people might think otherwise if the bank was in a foreign country.
Mr Salmond could peg the Scottish pound to sterling. But Scottish taxpayers would need to build a multibillion pound reserve to defend this against speculators, to avoid what happened when the UK itself was forced out of the parity with the developing euro [ERM] as recently as 1992.
Monday View: Sir Andrew Large is former deputy governor of the Bank of England
The Scots could, instead, issue a currency floating against the pound. That has been ruled out by Mr Salmond as too much change – though it’s the best option if Scotland wants real independence.
Finally, Scotland could try to join the euro. But do Scots want to vote in favour of independence only to trade Westminster and the Bank of England for Brussels and the ECB?
Businesses and foreign investors in Scotland would need to have confidence in Scotland’s currency, so the new nation’s budget would have to be solidly balanced to avoid risk of inflation, instability or stunted growth.
This would be a burden for Scottish taxpayers. The promises made by the SNP for pensions, welfare, and education will be expensive.
To lessen the pain, the rest of the UK would be asked for generous terms as oil and other assets and liabilities need to be divided.
The rest of the UK very much wants the union with Scotland to continue, but how generous would they be when they feel they have been divorced?
Is it sensible to take these risks? So much is on offer within the UK under devo max, including the currency union. A ‘No’ vote is surely the better option.
Read more: MONDAY VIEW: Why Alex Salmond is deluded... Vote against political union is also a vote against currency union | This is Money
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
*******************************************
Another huge blow for the Scottish nationalists as it is revealed that support in Scotland to preserve the Union has risen to an ALL-TIME high after Salmond's crushing defeat by Better Together leader Alistair Darling.
Another huge blow for the Scottish nationalists as it is revealed that support in Scotland to preserve the Union has risen to an ALL-TIME high after Salmond's crushing defeat by Better Together leader Alistair Darling.
With Salmond having just 39 days of campaigning to revive his lifeless bid to break-up Britain before the historic referendum on September 18, a shock new poll by Survation has shown that opposition to Scottish separation from the UK has risen to 50%, with just 37% of Scots intending to vote for independence.
That is a remarkable four point increase in the space of a single week for the No camp, with the Yes camp DOWN three points.
When undecided voters are excluded, the No camp is on 57 per cent – a massive 14-point lead over Yes, compared to just a six-point lead last Sunday.
More than two-thirds of the 1,010 Scots polled by Survation said the First Minister should produce a 'plan B' to his unrealistic bid to keep the pound before voters cast their ballots.
Asked to pick adjectives to describe the SNP leader's performance in the pivotal STV debate last Tuesday – which was watched by 1.7million people – the most popular choices were 'weak', 'uninformed' and 'dishonest'.
His opponent, former Chancellor Mr Darling who is spearheading the Better Together campaign, was described as 'knowledgeable' and 'strong'.
Mr Salmond's leadership is now under unprecedented scrutiny, with senior SNP figures privately briefing against him throughout the week and some suggesting his deputy Nicola Sturgeon should replace him for a crunch TV debate on the BBC later this month.
Mr Salmond's failure to answer questions about the currency of an independent Scotland is at the heart of the dramatic collapse.
Surge in no vote after Alex Salmond TV flop: Major blow for SNP in wake of debate defeat
Viewers believe Alistair Darling crushed Alex Salmond in live televised debate
Poll reveals nearly quarter of viewers now more likely to reject independence
More than two-thirds of 1,010 Scots polled said First Minister needs 'plan B'
By Alan Roden
Daily Mail
The campaign to save the Union has more than doubled its lead to a record high following Alex Salmond's TV debate meltdown, a sensational new poll has revealed.
An exclusive survey for the Scottish Daily Mail has found that viewers overwhelmingly believe Alistair Darling crushed his opponent, and nearly a quarter of those who watched are now more likely to reject independence.
At the end of a torrid week for the SNP, Mr Salmond now has only 39 days of campaigning to revive his lifeless bid to break-up Britain before the historic referendum on September 18.
The poll, carried out after the live debate between Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and Better Together campaign leader Alistair Darling, shows nearly a quarter of viewers are now more likely to reject independence
The shock Survation poll, carried out on Wednesday and Thursday, shows that opposition to separation has soared to 50 per cent for the first time since the firm began asking the question.
That is a remarkable four point increase in the space of a single week, with only 37 per cent now in favour of a Yes vote – down three points. When undecided voters are excluded, the No camp is on 57 per cent – a massive 14-point lead over Yes, compared to just a six-point lead last Sunday.
Mr Salmond's failure to answer questions about the currency of an independent Scotland is at the heart of the dramatic collapse.
More than two-thirds of the 1,010 Scots polled by Survation said the First Minister should produce a 'plan B' to his unrealistic bid to keep the pound before voters cast their ballots.
Asked to pick adjectives to describe the SNP leader's performance in the pivotal STV debate last Tuesday – which was watched by 1.7million people – the most popular choices were 'weak', 'uninformed' and 'dishonest'.
His opponent, former Chancellor Mr Darling who is spearheading the Better Together campaign, was described as 'knowledgeable' and 'strong'.
Mr Salmond's leadership is now under unprecedented scrutiny, with senior SNP figures privately briefing against him throughout the week and some suggesting his deputy Nicola Sturgeon should replace him for a crunch TV debate on the BBC later this month.
Alarmingly for the First Minister, 15 per cent of Scots who backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election would be more likely to vote Yes in the referendum if Miss Sturgeon was the leader.
A staggering 45 per cent of independence supporters now believe Miss Sturgeon should represent the Yes camp in the BBC debate on August 25.
And to compound the crisis for Mr Salmond, the collapse in support is largely due to huge numbers of female voters who have switched to the No camp in recent days.
Patrick Briône, director of research at Survation, said: 'Following his unexpected success in the debate, Alistair Darling has seen support for No jump to its highest ever level in a Survation poll, at 50 per cent and a 13-point lead.
'Whilst this post-debate boost may fade over time, with little over a month remaining until Scots head to the polls it looks as though Alex Salmond is fast running out of time to turn things around. Barring a dramatic reversal in the next debate, the dreams of Scottish nationalists appear increasingly likely to be dashed come September 18.'
During a visit to Glasgow yesterday, Labour leader Ed Miliband told the Mail: 'I think what this shows is that Tuesday night was a very big moment because of Alistair's persistent and very forensic questioning. Alex Salmond was exposed on a central question about the referendum and an independent Scotland's currency.
'I think what has been laid bare is that he has no plan, he has no answers, and I think a lot of people seeking to make up their minds in this referendum will be thinking this is just too big a risk when there's no answer on the currency.'
Mr Darling added: 'What's happening is the closer we get to polling day, the more people are making their minds up and saying No thanks to the risks and costs of independence, and seeing the advantages that we can have.
'We're not complacent, but I'm increasingly confident that we're going to win this.'
The findings come less than a week since Yes Scotland chiefs said a Survation poll for the Scottish Mail on Sunday put them 'within touching distance of success on September 18'. But the new figures suggest that even convincing every undecided voter to back separation may not be enough for victory.
According to the poll, 49 per cent of men plan to vote No, with 41 per cent in favour of independence. Among women, 52 per cent plan to reject separation – up six points in a week – and only 33 per cent said they will vote Yes.
Younger voters aged 16 to 24 have also overwhelmingly swung behind the No camp, with 60 per cent now in favour of the Union – up from 43 per cent last Sunday.
There are also more supporters of the Union than opponents in most regions of Scotland, including the key battleground of Glasgow.
Asked about Tuesday's TV debate, Survation found that 65 per cent of the 1,010 respondents had watched the show. Of those who saw the live clash, 53 per cent believe Mr Darling won, compared to just 28 per cent who picked Mr Salmond.
Even among those planning to vote Yes to independence, the First Minister was seen as the victor by fewer than two-thirds of respondents.
Asked if the debate had changed how they intend to vote, 13 per cent said they were more likely to back separation, but 22 per cent said they were more likely to cross the 'No' box on the ballot paper.
Mr Salmond can take some comfort in his personal ratings figures, with 39 per cent of Scots satisfied with the way he is doing his job as First Minister, compared to just 19 per cent who are satisfied with David Cameron's job as Prime Minister.
Mr Salmond was also considered the best representative for Yes Scotland by 32 per cent of voters, with only 23 per cent picking his deputy Miss Sturgeon.
A Yes Scotland spokesman said: 'The poll shows most Scots agree with us that the Westminster parties are bluffing on currency - and a majority want an independent Scotland to keep the pound, which is exactly what will happen.
'The polls will always fluctuate, but what they all show is that support for Yes is well above 40 per cent - and we are very confident our positive message that a Yes vote is Scotland's one opportunity to protect the NHS, create more jobs here and guarantee that Scotland no longer gets landed with Tory governments we reject, will win a majority on September 18.'
Read more: Surge in no vote after Alex Salmond TV flop: Major blow for SNP in wake of debate defeat | Mail Online
Last edited:
Fresh poll blow for Salmond as six in 10 Scottish voters now reject independence amid growing fears over the pound
SNP leader faces mountain to climb with just 5 weeks to go until referendum
'Yes' to independence camp trailing by 22 points following last week's debate
Some 61% of those certain to vote planning to reject independence
By Tom Mctague, Mail Online Deputy Political Editor
11 August 2014
Daily Mail
First Minister Alex Salmond was mauled during last week's TV independence debate over his refusal to spell out a 'Plan B' if Westminster refuses to allow Scotland to use the pound. He now faces almost an impossible task in his bid to achieve an independent Scotland
Alex Salmond is 'running out of opportunities' to win next month's independence referendum it was claimed today - as a new poll showed a huge lead for the 'No' camp.
A survey, carried out amid the fallout from last week’s TV showdown between Mr Salmond and the former Chancellor Alistair Darling, gives the pro-UK campaign a 22-point lead over the nationalists.
The findings come just five weeks before voters north of the border go to the polls in the September 18 referendum.
More than 1,100 Scots were asked their voting intentions between Monday and Thursday last week – coinciding with Tuesday’s independence debate.
According to the YouGov poll, published in the Sun today, some 55 per cent of Scottish voters now plan to vote No to independence, compared to just 35 per cent who plan to vote Yes.
But once the ‘don’t knows’ are stripped out, the No camp lead by 61 to 39 per cent.
Polling expert Anthony Wells, of YouGov, said Mr Salmond was running out of time to turn his poll ratings around.
He said: ‘Yes campaigners had hoped that the Commonwealth Games would have narrowed the gap and it hasn’t.
‘With five weeks to go and a 20 point No lead to overturn, the Yes Scotland campaign need a game-changer and are running out of opportunities.’
Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall added: 'Alex Salmond's failure to be honest with Scots about his Plan B on currency is costing him votes.
'It's clear that the momentum in this campaign is with those of us who believe the brightest future for Scotland is to remain part of the UK.
'Alex Salmond wants us to take a leap into the unknown with independence. He wants us to take a huge risk with the future of our country. Yet he can't tell us what money our wages, pensions and benefits would be paid in.
'He can't say what currency we would use to invest in our schools and hospitals. And he can't be clear about what money we would be paying our supermarket and energy bills in.'
Mr Darling, the leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, added: ‘This is yet another encouraging poll.
‘However, we are in no way complacent. There are just six weeks to go and we will be fighting for every vote.
‘What is clear, though, is that the closer we get the more people are looking at the nationalists plans and realising that they make no sense.’
Fresh blow for Alex Salmond as six in 10 Scottish voters now reject independence | Mail Online
************************************************
Alex Salmond is wrong. Scotland isn’t more ‘socially just’ than the rest of Britain
268 Comments
Graeme Archer (a Scot)
9 August 2014
The Spectator
(Photo: Getty)
Alex Salmond’s suggestion that Scotland is more predisposed towards ‘social justice’ than other parts of Britain is absurd, repellent, and embarrassing. Let’s take those points in order.
From the Left’s perspective first. To care about the dispossessed must surely imply a sense of solidarity. I walked to the BBC studio this morning through a nearly empty, still cold Brighton. Only nearly empty – the people who’d slept rough the night before were in evidence, of course. Salmond’s message of solidarity, of concern for the dispossessed in England, is: ‘Get lost. You don’t matter, except that my new socially just Scotland will act as a beacon to the socially unjust English.’
That Salmond beacon, unfortunately, would not warm a single, homeless, English soul. If you think political action can alleviate poverty, on what basis do you make such action more efficacious, by drawing an arbitrary circumference around those you seek to help?
During the discussion on the Today programme, my opponent claimed it was ‘specious’ of me to ask whether my English father had less concern for justice than my Scottish mother. But it’s entirely the right question to ask: it’s not those of us who are happy being Scottish and British who claim that such a qualititative difference exists. Nationalists do not like to follow through their arguments, but ‘Scotland is more in favour of social justice than England’ must have such a follow-on, direct interpretation, or it is a void claim. Well, it is void, as void as it is repellent. No-one should fall for the dog whistles of a demagogue, waxing on misty-eyed about the properties of his ‘people’.
To see how embarrassing Salmond’s claim is, even on its own terms, we should move our perspective a little to the Right (but we’ll stay personal). I was born in 1970 in Ayrshire, a county that has been run for all that time by the Labour party or the SNP. Strathclyde Regional Council had far more influence on my schooling (and hence my life chances), and my parent’s jobs, than Thatcher ever did.
How successful have the Left been, in delivering their social justice agenda?
It’s hard to think about that question without locating some of my own anger – which is real, and not synthetic, unlike (I suspect) that of the shouty nationalist I encountered on Today. We’ve had fifteen years of Scottish Parliament, plenty of time (for example) to do something about the inequalities in state education. Nothing doing. Those famous PISA surveys show that the gap in maths achievement between the most and least advantaged Scottish children is the equivalent of comparing Hong Kong (3rd in the PISA rankings) with Turkey (44th.) Educational policy is under the entire control of the Scottish parliament: this cannot be blamed on ‘English Tories’.
Fifteen years is long enough, too, to wonder if there might not be a link between the unchanging politics on offer from Salmond’s parliament, and the shameful life expectancies in parts of Glasgow. But the most eye-catching of Salmond’s commitments to tackling social justice has been to discriminate against English students who study in our universities (they pay fees; Scots – and others – don’t.)
There is a British politician who was radicalised by Scottish poverty, of course, who was moved to create an entire movement for social justice as a result of his Easterhouse conversion. I presume even Iain Duncan Smith’s critics wouldn’t suggest that his mission in government is not fuelled by what he first saw in Glasgow.
His – and the Right’s –insight is that you can’t have any justice if you don’t tackle unemployment. The irony is that the jobs which are coming to Scotland are the product of an English radical system, and not a platitudinous Scottish nationalist one.
That I disagree with Salmond (and his pop singing supporters) doesn’t, of course, invalidate the right of Scotland to be independent, should the current generation of people who live there so wish. I’m not the one who claims to be able to see into the soul of a nation.
But I trust my compatriots – Left, Right or Centre, Ayrshire-born or arrivals from elsewhere – to look at what Salmond is offering, look at what he’s done … and to turn him down, with a polite (are you reading, Pat Kane?) ‘no thanks’.
Alex Salmond is wrong. Scotland isn't more 'socially just' than the rest of Britain » Spectator Blogs
SNP leader faces mountain to climb with just 5 weeks to go until referendum
'Yes' to independence camp trailing by 22 points following last week's debate
Some 61% of those certain to vote planning to reject independence
By Tom Mctague, Mail Online Deputy Political Editor
11 August 2014
Daily Mail
First Minister Alex Salmond was mauled during last week's TV independence debate over his refusal to spell out a 'Plan B' if Westminster refuses to allow Scotland to use the pound. He now faces almost an impossible task in his bid to achieve an independent Scotland
Alex Salmond is 'running out of opportunities' to win next month's independence referendum it was claimed today - as a new poll showed a huge lead for the 'No' camp.
A survey, carried out amid the fallout from last week’s TV showdown between Mr Salmond and the former Chancellor Alistair Darling, gives the pro-UK campaign a 22-point lead over the nationalists.
The findings come just five weeks before voters north of the border go to the polls in the September 18 referendum.
More than 1,100 Scots were asked their voting intentions between Monday and Thursday last week – coinciding with Tuesday’s independence debate.
According to the YouGov poll, published in the Sun today, some 55 per cent of Scottish voters now plan to vote No to independence, compared to just 35 per cent who plan to vote Yes.
But once the ‘don’t knows’ are stripped out, the No camp lead by 61 to 39 per cent.
Polling expert Anthony Wells, of YouGov, said Mr Salmond was running out of time to turn his poll ratings around.
He said: ‘Yes campaigners had hoped that the Commonwealth Games would have narrowed the gap and it hasn’t.
‘With five weeks to go and a 20 point No lead to overturn, the Yes Scotland campaign need a game-changer and are running out of opportunities.’
Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall added: 'Alex Salmond's failure to be honest with Scots about his Plan B on currency is costing him votes.
'It's clear that the momentum in this campaign is with those of us who believe the brightest future for Scotland is to remain part of the UK.
'Alex Salmond wants us to take a leap into the unknown with independence. He wants us to take a huge risk with the future of our country. Yet he can't tell us what money our wages, pensions and benefits would be paid in.
'He can't say what currency we would use to invest in our schools and hospitals. And he can't be clear about what money we would be paying our supermarket and energy bills in.'
Mr Darling, the leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, added: ‘This is yet another encouraging poll.
‘However, we are in no way complacent. There are just six weeks to go and we will be fighting for every vote.
‘What is clear, though, is that the closer we get the more people are looking at the nationalists plans and realising that they make no sense.’
Fresh blow for Alex Salmond as six in 10 Scottish voters now reject independence | Mail Online
************************************************
Alex Salmond is wrong. Scotland isn’t more ‘socially just’ than the rest of Britain
268 Comments
Graeme Archer (a Scot)
9 August 2014
The Spectator
(Photo: Getty)
Alex Salmond’s suggestion that Scotland is more predisposed towards ‘social justice’ than other parts of Britain is absurd, repellent, and embarrassing. Let’s take those points in order.
From the Left’s perspective first. To care about the dispossessed must surely imply a sense of solidarity. I walked to the BBC studio this morning through a nearly empty, still cold Brighton. Only nearly empty – the people who’d slept rough the night before were in evidence, of course. Salmond’s message of solidarity, of concern for the dispossessed in England, is: ‘Get lost. You don’t matter, except that my new socially just Scotland will act as a beacon to the socially unjust English.’
That Salmond beacon, unfortunately, would not warm a single, homeless, English soul. If you think political action can alleviate poverty, on what basis do you make such action more efficacious, by drawing an arbitrary circumference around those you seek to help?
During the discussion on the Today programme, my opponent claimed it was ‘specious’ of me to ask whether my English father had less concern for justice than my Scottish mother. But it’s entirely the right question to ask: it’s not those of us who are happy being Scottish and British who claim that such a qualititative difference exists. Nationalists do not like to follow through their arguments, but ‘Scotland is more in favour of social justice than England’ must have such a follow-on, direct interpretation, or it is a void claim. Well, it is void, as void as it is repellent. No-one should fall for the dog whistles of a demagogue, waxing on misty-eyed about the properties of his ‘people’.
To see how embarrassing Salmond’s claim is, even on its own terms, we should move our perspective a little to the Right (but we’ll stay personal). I was born in 1970 in Ayrshire, a county that has been run for all that time by the Labour party or the SNP. Strathclyde Regional Council had far more influence on my schooling (and hence my life chances), and my parent’s jobs, than Thatcher ever did.
How successful have the Left been, in delivering their social justice agenda?
It’s hard to think about that question without locating some of my own anger – which is real, and not synthetic, unlike (I suspect) that of the shouty nationalist I encountered on Today. We’ve had fifteen years of Scottish Parliament, plenty of time (for example) to do something about the inequalities in state education. Nothing doing. Those famous PISA surveys show that the gap in maths achievement between the most and least advantaged Scottish children is the equivalent of comparing Hong Kong (3rd in the PISA rankings) with Turkey (44th.) Educational policy is under the entire control of the Scottish parliament: this cannot be blamed on ‘English Tories’.
Fifteen years is long enough, too, to wonder if there might not be a link between the unchanging politics on offer from Salmond’s parliament, and the shameful life expectancies in parts of Glasgow. But the most eye-catching of Salmond’s commitments to tackling social justice has been to discriminate against English students who study in our universities (they pay fees; Scots – and others – don’t.)
There is a British politician who was radicalised by Scottish poverty, of course, who was moved to create an entire movement for social justice as a result of his Easterhouse conversion. I presume even Iain Duncan Smith’s critics wouldn’t suggest that his mission in government is not fuelled by what he first saw in Glasgow.
His – and the Right’s –insight is that you can’t have any justice if you don’t tackle unemployment. The irony is that the jobs which are coming to Scotland are the product of an English radical system, and not a platitudinous Scottish nationalist one.
That I disagree with Salmond (and his pop singing supporters) doesn’t, of course, invalidate the right of Scotland to be independent, should the current generation of people who live there so wish. I’m not the one who claims to be able to see into the soul of a nation.
But I trust my compatriots – Left, Right or Centre, Ayrshire-born or arrivals from elsewhere – to look at what Salmond is offering, look at what he’s done … and to turn him down, with a polite (are you reading, Pat Kane?) ‘no thanks’.
Alex Salmond is wrong. Scotland isn't more 'socially just' than the rest of Britain » Spectator Blogs
13 August 2014
Douglas Murray
The Spectator
SNP deputy leader and Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
Regular readers will have noticed that I don’t like Islamic fundamentalists. Nor — though this is perhaps less often on display — do I much like Scottish Nationalists. Not just because their primary cause is to break up one of the two most successful political unions in history, but because so many of their secondary causes are so rancid as well.
Take this poster advertising a ‘Women for Gaza’ rally in Glasgow this Saturday.
The headline speaker is Nicola Sturgeon MSP. She is the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and leading light of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP).
And one of the two other scheduled speakers is Yvonne Ridley — the notorious convert nutcase with whom I have had cross words before. Ridley used to be most famous for expressing solidarity with the leading al-Qaeda beheader and wedding-bomber Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In recent days she has re-entered the fray by calling for a ‘Zionist-free Scotland’ (an extension of her ‘Respect’ party leader’s call for an ‘Israeli-free Bradford’).
Nutcase: The whacko Islamic convert Yvonne Ridley, member of George Galloway's Respect Party
It is to be expected that Ridley, Galloway (a Scot) et al should utter such fulminations. But why is the Deputy First Minister of Scotland endorsing such sentiments by sharing a platform with their proponents? Does Scotland’s Deputy First Minister also want to make Scotland ‘Zionist-free’? I suppose she will say that she is simply showing support for the women of Gaza, in which case she ought to join a rally against Hamas rather than an anti-Israel one.
But the most rabid forms of anti-peace, anti-Israel activism seem to have become part of the SNP agenda. And it is a tragedy. After all, what of the noble tradition of Scottish support for the state of Israel? Where does it leave Jews and non-Jews who are Scottish and believe in Israel’s right to defend itself — or at least not to be annihilated by the ISIS-like forces of Hamas? Where does it leave Jim Murphy, Baroness Smith, Gordon Brown, Malcolm Rifkind and George Robertson? Where does it leave the Zionist tradition of the Church of Scotland, Jo Grimond, Arthur Balfour and John Buchan? Come to that, where exactly does it leave the people of Newton Mearns or the Jewish populations of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh or Glasgow?
That, in the end, is the problem with the nationalists of the SNP kind. They are never content with their own brand of sectarianism.
They want to import and propel every other nasty form of sectarianism too. If Nicola Sturgeon goes ahead with the event this weekend then the best that will be said of her is that she is utterly ignorant of the swamps in which she is swimming.
Why is the SNP endorsing Israel haters? » Spectator Blogs
Last edited:
A new poll shows that the English public are opposed to sharing the pound with an independent Scotland and want the British government to get tougher on the Scots should the Scots, as seems increasingly likely, reject independence.
In fact, research published today concludes that the English want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.
The Future of England Survey 2014, of which 3,695 English adults took part, found little support for Scottish separation - this is a change from previous polls which showed that a higher proportion of the English were in favour of Scottish independence than the Scots - but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.
However, if independence is rejected by the Scots, large majorities of voters in England support cutting Scottish public spending (which, per head, is much higher than it is in England and much higher than it is in poorer Wales) to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
Since the Scottish-dominated Labour Government gave Scotland its own parliament and handed Wales and Northern Ireland their own Assemblies (but completely forget to give England its own parliament) in 1999, the English have had to cope with the unfairness, and the undemocratic nature, of Scottish MPs at the UK parliament at Westminster being able to vote on matters affecting only England, whereas English MPs cannot have a vote or a say on matters affecting only Scotland because such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish parliament.
So now the English people are telling the British government that, should the Scots reject independence, it's time to slash Scottish public spending (wealthy Scotland gets more public spending per head than poorer areas of England) and to ban Scottish MPs from having any say on England-only matters.
Not surprisingly, backing for cutting Scottish spending was much stronger among Tory and Ukip voters (70 per cent), compared with a bare majority of Labour (50 per cent) and Liberal Democrat (54 per cent) supporters (who obviously see no problem in taxpayers in the poorest regions of England subsidising the richer Scots).
In fact, my bet is that, rather than Scotland becoming independent, it will be ENGLAND, finally, given more autonomy by being given either a long-overdue English parliament or each of its major regions - the North West, South East, North East, South West, etc - will each be given their own assemblies and Scotland will remain within a newly-federal UK.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own First Ministers and parliament or assemblies. It's now time for England, or each of its regions, to be given each of the same.
English reject Alex Salmond's plan to share the pound
Research shows the English want the Government to take a "hard line" with Scotland whatever the independence referendum result.
The English are overwhelmingly opposed to sharing the pound with a separate Scotland, according to a new survey Photo: Rex Features
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
20 Aug 2014
The Telegraph
196 Comments
The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.
The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.
However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.
But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.
Unfair: Scotland, despite being one of the wealthiest parts of the UK, receives more public spending per head than poorer region of the UK, such as Wales and some English regions. The English public have let it be known that, should the Scots reject independence next month, Scottish public spending should be slashed. It is the "Barnett Formula" which decides how much public spending each UK region should get, but even Joel Barnett, who created it in the 1970s, now thinks it's unfair on the English and should be scrapped. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."
Backing for cutting Scottish spending was much stronger among Tory and Ukip voters (70 per cent), compared with a bare majority of Labour (50 per cent) and Liberal Democrat (54 per cent) supporters.
Professor Charlie Jeffery, of Edinburgh University, said it was “striking” how tough the English are on Scotland. He said: “There appears to be little appetite for the Scottish Government’s vision of independence amid continuing partnership with the rest of the UK on the pound, Europe and Nato.
“If anything the message appears to be: ‘Vote Yes by all means, but if you do, you’re on your own.’”
The Future of England Survey 2014, which was conducted on behalf of the Economic and Social Research Council by YouGov in late April, found 59 per cent opposition to Scottish independence compared to 19 per cent support.
Mr Salmond has claimed a Eurozone-style currency union with a separate Scotland would also be in the best interests of the remainder of the UK, but 53 per cent of English people rejected Scots continuing to use sterling.
Again, opposition to a deal on the pound was much stronger among Tory (69 per cent) and Ukip (64 per cent) voters than Labour (46 per cent) or Lib Dem (49 per cent) supporters.
Barely a quarter (26 per cent) said the remainder of the UK should support Scottish applications for membership of the EU and Nato, compared to 36 per cent who disagreed.
This is potentially significant as Mr Salmond has vowed to remove Britain’s nuclear deterrent from the Clyde but Westminster would have the power to veto Scotland’s entry to either organisation.
Only one in ten English voters said they believed the First Minister’s claim that relations between England and Scotland would improve following a Yes vote.
The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that “Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.”
By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.
However, 42 per cent said they backed giving the Scottish Parliament control over the majority of taxes compared to only 25 per cent who were opposed.
All three pro-UK parties have promised to transfer more financial powers to Holyrood if there is a No vote but the researchers found the English want much more radical devolution than the “modest reform proposals” suggested by Labour.
The academics also found the English are pessimistic about the Union’s future even after a No vote, with 37 per cent agreeing that Scotland and England would continue to “drift apart” compared to 21 per cent who disagreed.
Jackie Baillie, a Scottish Labour MSP, said: “It is not surprising that the majority of people in England do not support a currency union.
That's why we need to know Alex Salmond's Plan B for what would replace the pound.”
A Yes Scotland spokesman said: “It is a real concern for a growing number of Scots that Scotland’s budget is in Westminster’s crosshairs and waiting to be slashed in the event of a No vote.”
English reject Alex Salmond's plan to share the pound - Telegraph
In fact, research published today concludes that the English want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.
The Future of England Survey 2014, of which 3,695 English adults took part, found little support for Scottish separation - this is a change from previous polls which showed that a higher proportion of the English were in favour of Scottish independence than the Scots - but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.
However, if independence is rejected by the Scots, large majorities of voters in England support cutting Scottish public spending (which, per head, is much higher than it is in England and much higher than it is in poorer Wales) to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
Since the Scottish-dominated Labour Government gave Scotland its own parliament and handed Wales and Northern Ireland their own Assemblies (but completely forget to give England its own parliament) in 1999, the English have had to cope with the unfairness, and the undemocratic nature, of Scottish MPs at the UK parliament at Westminster being able to vote on matters affecting only England, whereas English MPs cannot have a vote or a say on matters affecting only Scotland because such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish parliament.
So now the English people are telling the British government that, should the Scots reject independence, it's time to slash Scottish public spending (wealthy Scotland gets more public spending per head than poorer areas of England) and to ban Scottish MPs from having any say on England-only matters.
Not surprisingly, backing for cutting Scottish spending was much stronger among Tory and Ukip voters (70 per cent), compared with a bare majority of Labour (50 per cent) and Liberal Democrat (54 per cent) supporters (who obviously see no problem in taxpayers in the poorest regions of England subsidising the richer Scots).
In fact, my bet is that, rather than Scotland becoming independent, it will be ENGLAND, finally, given more autonomy by being given either a long-overdue English parliament or each of its major regions - the North West, South East, North East, South West, etc - will each be given their own assemblies and Scotland will remain within a newly-federal UK.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own First Ministers and parliament or assemblies. It's now time for England, or each of its regions, to be given each of the same.
English reject Alex Salmond's plan to share the pound
Research shows the English want the Government to take a "hard line" with Scotland whatever the independence referendum result.
The English are overwhelmingly opposed to sharing the pound with a separate Scotland, according to a new survey Photo: Rex Features
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
20 Aug 2014
The Telegraph
The English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland, according to research published today that concludes they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.
The survey of 3,695 English adults found little support for Scottish separation but only 23 per cent said they would support Alex Salmond’s plan for a formal currency union if there is a Yes vote next month.
However, if independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
The findings represent a major blow to Mr Salmond’s claim that divorce negotiations following a Yes vote would be amicable and that the UK parties are bluffing about rejecting a currency union with a separate Scotland.
But the Cardiff and Edinburgh university researchers said they also undermined assurances by the Unionist parties that the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland more than £1,200 per head extra of public spending, would remain intact after a No vote.
Unfair: Scotland, despite being one of the wealthiest parts of the UK, receives more public spending per head than poorer region of the UK, such as Wales and some English regions. The English public have let it be known that, should the Scots reject independence next month, Scottish public spending should be slashed. It is the "Barnett Formula" which decides how much public spending each UK region should get, but even Joel Barnett, who created it in the 1970s, now thinks it's unfair on the English and should be scrapped. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."
Backing for cutting Scottish spending was much stronger among Tory and Ukip voters (70 per cent), compared with a bare majority of Labour (50 per cent) and Liberal Democrat (54 per cent) supporters.
Professor Charlie Jeffery, of Edinburgh University, said it was “striking” how tough the English are on Scotland. He said: “There appears to be little appetite for the Scottish Government’s vision of independence amid continuing partnership with the rest of the UK on the pound, Europe and Nato.
“If anything the message appears to be: ‘Vote Yes by all means, but if you do, you’re on your own.’”
The Future of England Survey 2014, which was conducted on behalf of the Economic and Social Research Council by YouGov in late April, found 59 per cent opposition to Scottish independence compared to 19 per cent support.
Mr Salmond has claimed a Eurozone-style currency union with a separate Scotland would also be in the best interests of the remainder of the UK, but 53 per cent of English people rejected Scots continuing to use sterling.
Again, opposition to a deal on the pound was much stronger among Tory (69 per cent) and Ukip (64 per cent) voters than Labour (46 per cent) or Lib Dem (49 per cent) supporters.
Barely a quarter (26 per cent) said the remainder of the UK should support Scottish applications for membership of the EU and Nato, compared to 36 per cent who disagreed.
This is potentially significant as Mr Salmond has vowed to remove Britain’s nuclear deterrent from the Clyde but Westminster would have the power to veto Scotland’s entry to either organisation.
Only one in ten English voters said they believed the First Minister’s claim that relations between England and Scotland would improve following a Yes vote.
The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that “Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.”
By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.
However, 42 per cent said they backed giving the Scottish Parliament control over the majority of taxes compared to only 25 per cent who were opposed.
All three pro-UK parties have promised to transfer more financial powers to Holyrood if there is a No vote but the researchers found the English want much more radical devolution than the “modest reform proposals” suggested by Labour.
The academics also found the English are pessimistic about the Union’s future even after a No vote, with 37 per cent agreeing that Scotland and England would continue to “drift apart” compared to 21 per cent who disagreed.
Jackie Baillie, a Scottish Labour MSP, said: “It is not surprising that the majority of people in England do not support a currency union.
That's why we need to know Alex Salmond's Plan B for what would replace the pound.”
A Yes Scotland spokesman said: “It is a real concern for a growing number of Scots that Scotland’s budget is in Westminster’s crosshairs and waiting to be slashed in the event of a No vote.”
English reject Alex Salmond's plan to share the pound - Telegraph
Last edited:
Sean Thomas
Sean Thomas is a novelist, journalist and travel writer. He also publishes thrillers under the name Tom Knox. He is currently writing a memoir of his extremely misspent youth, and similarly misspent adulthood, and tweets under the name @thomasknox.
The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all
By Sean Thomas
Scotland
August 31st, 2014
Comment on this
George Orwell
It’s often been observed that a certain type of British Lefty hates Britain – and that they reserve particularly hatred for Englishness. Back in 1941 George Orwell made this acute remark:
Evidence for this disease is all around us, but shows up particularly in two red-button issues-of-the-day: the independence referendum, and the appalling revelations from Rotherham (where the left wing council allowed Pakistani Muslim men to sexually assault white girls).
The British Left hate Britain - but they reserve particular hatred for England and Englishness
First, Scotland. The latest polls show that the United Kingdom is close to breaking up. This is a remarkable state of affairs when you consider that, a year ago, polls were two to one against partition. How has this occurred? Because we have allowed the British Labour party to lead the No debate.
This was a disastrous decision, given that, as Orwell noted, Labourites and Lefties revile and deride so many of the things perceived as quintessentially British. Take your pick from the monarchy, the flag, the Army, the history of rampant conquest, the biggest empire in the world, the supremacy of the English language, anyone who lives in the countryside, the national anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, a nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef – all this, for Lefties, is a source of shame.
The result, north of the Border, is plain to see. Whenever the passionate and patriotic SNP asks the No campaign for a positive vision of the UK (instead of dry economic facts, and negative fear-mongering) all we hear is silence, or maybe a quiet murmur about “the NHS”. Yes, the NHS. For many Lefties, the NHS – an average European health system with several notable flaws – is the only good thing about Britain. It’s like saying we should keep the United Kingdom because of PAYE. Thus we tiptoe towards the dissolution of the nation.
There is a deep irony here. If Scotland secedes it will hurt the Labour Party more than anyone, electorally. But such is the subconscious hatred of Britain and Britishness in Lefty hearts, I believe many of them think that’s a price worth paying: just to kick the “Tory Unionists” in the nuts, just to deliver the final death-blow to British “delusions of grandeur”.
It is a tragic state of affairs. And yet there is worse. Rotherham.
We don’t need to rehearse the facts. We’ve all read them, and reeled away in horror. The interesting question is how and why would any country allow the racialised gang-rape of its own daughters?
Why? Because too many in that country, especially on the Left, most especially in the Labour Party, despise their own ordinary people: the white working classes.
Take this comment by Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn, and Home Secretary from 1997-2001, when the Rotherham atrocities were beginning. “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent.” It is almost unimaginable that any senior politician would say this of his own people in America, Russia or France. Yet here it comes straight out of the mouth of a very senior politician indeed – along with many other expressions of Guardianista sneering: at the white working classes with their “chav culture”, “BNP values”, “Gillian Duffy bigotry” and so forth.
What kind of message does Straw’s statement send to everyone else? It says that the English are dislikeable, that they are to be feared, and contained, to be treated with contempt. It says that the ordinary English are a nasty race who need to be diluted by mass immigration; it says, in particular, that poor white English people are especially worthless.
And thus, Rotherham.
Yes, it’s infinitely depressing. But we cannot give in to despair. Instead we could listen again to George Orwell, who once said that, however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is “a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia”. Orwell wrote those words seventy years ago. It is time we paid attention, and turned the tide.
The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all – Telegraph Blogs
Sean Thomas is a novelist, journalist and travel writer. He also publishes thrillers under the name Tom Knox. He is currently writing a memoir of his extremely misspent youth, and similarly misspent adulthood, and tweets under the name @thomasknox.
The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all
By Sean Thomas
Scotland
August 31st, 2014
Comment on this
George Orwell
It’s often been observed that a certain type of British Lefty hates Britain – and that they reserve particularly hatred for Englishness. Back in 1941 George Orwell made this acute remark:
England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to sn igger at every English institution.
So what’s new? The difference today is that this shame and self-hatred now dominates Left-wing thought, whereas it was once balanced by the decent Left: who were proud to inherit the noble traditions of radical English patriotism.
Evidence for this disease is all around us, but shows up particularly in two red-button issues-of-the-day: the independence referendum, and the appalling revelations from Rotherham (where the left wing council allowed Pakistani Muslim men to sexually assault white girls).
The British Left hate Britain - but they reserve particular hatred for England and Englishness
First, Scotland. The latest polls show that the United Kingdom is close to breaking up. This is a remarkable state of affairs when you consider that, a year ago, polls were two to one against partition. How has this occurred? Because we have allowed the British Labour party to lead the No debate.
This was a disastrous decision, given that, as Orwell noted, Labourites and Lefties revile and deride so many of the things perceived as quintessentially British. Take your pick from the monarchy, the flag, the Army, the history of rampant conquest, the biggest empire in the world, the supremacy of the English language, anyone who lives in the countryside, the national anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, a nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef – all this, for Lefties, is a source of shame.
The result, north of the Border, is plain to see. Whenever the passionate and patriotic SNP asks the No campaign for a positive vision of the UK (instead of dry economic facts, and negative fear-mongering) all we hear is silence, or maybe a quiet murmur about “the NHS”. Yes, the NHS. For many Lefties, the NHS – an average European health system with several notable flaws – is the only good thing about Britain. It’s like saying we should keep the United Kingdom because of PAYE. Thus we tiptoe towards the dissolution of the nation.
There is a deep irony here. If Scotland secedes it will hurt the Labour Party more than anyone, electorally. But such is the subconscious hatred of Britain and Britishness in Lefty hearts, I believe many of them think that’s a price worth paying: just to kick the “Tory Unionists” in the nuts, just to deliver the final death-blow to British “delusions of grandeur”.
It is a tragic state of affairs. And yet there is worse. Rotherham.
We don’t need to rehearse the facts. We’ve all read them, and reeled away in horror. The interesting question is how and why would any country allow the racialised gang-rape of its own daughters?
Why? Because too many in that country, especially on the Left, most especially in the Labour Party, despise their own ordinary people: the white working classes.
Take this comment by Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn, and Home Secretary from 1997-2001, when the Rotherham atrocities were beginning. “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent.” It is almost unimaginable that any senior politician would say this of his own people in America, Russia or France. Yet here it comes straight out of the mouth of a very senior politician indeed – along with many other expressions of Guardianista sneering: at the white working classes with their “chav culture”, “BNP values”, “Gillian Duffy bigotry” and so forth.
What kind of message does Straw’s statement send to everyone else? It says that the English are dislikeable, that they are to be feared, and contained, to be treated with contempt. It says that the ordinary English are a nasty race who need to be diluted by mass immigration; it says, in particular, that poor white English people are especially worthless.
And thus, Rotherham.
Yes, it’s infinitely depressing. But we cannot give in to despair. Instead we could listen again to George Orwell, who once said that, however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is “a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia”. Orwell wrote those words seventy years ago. It is time we paid attention, and turned the tide.
The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all – Telegraph Blogs
