At last the BBC refer to England

The coverage by the British state's broadcaster, the BBC, of the riots has correctly referred to them as taking place in England.

The suspicion that the BBC's liberal elites tend to refer to 'England' and 'English' in a non-sport context only when there is bad news will be proved well or ill-founded in due course.

Now that the BBC has admitted England as a nation exists - albeit in the context of the riots - then to be consistent they should report the continuing societal, political, police and the judicial response to the riots and to their background as relating to England only too.

We shall see. 

Why do the British elites let down England time and time again?

Copied below ia an article from the Times which we think worth copying.

Solo Scotland can’t have our Armed Forces, warns Fox

Liam Fox with Lossiemouth’s commander, Group Captain Andy Hine, yesterday

Andrew Milligan/PA

• 
  Liam Fox with Lossiemouth’s commander, Group Captain Andy Hine, yesterday Andrew Milligan/PA

Lorraine Davidson

July 20 2011

Liam Fox warned yesterday that the SNP’s plans for independence would jeopardise the expanded military “footprint” announced for Scotland earlier this week.

The Defence Secretary was speaking during a visit to RAF Lossiemouth, which was saved from the threat of closure earlier this week. Although Leuchars, in Fife, will close as part of the bases review, the UK Government has announced that it will double the size of the Army north of the Border.

Asked about the SNP’s plans for independence, Mr Fox said: “If we were not to have a Union I could not guarantee what the military footprint would be here. Our Armed Forces are for the Crown around the UK. We could not guarantee what that footprint would be should the Union break up.”

Under a shake-up of defence services, announced on Monday, the size of the Army in Scotland will increase from about 3,500 to 8,500. One of five multi-role brigades will be centred on RAF Kirknewton, a former airfield southwest of Edinburgh. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars. The Defence Secretary also used his visit to give an assurance that there would be no gap in the changeover at Leuchars from being an RAF base to an army barracks for about 1,500 troops. He said that strenuous efforts would be made to speed up the process of reopening RAF Kinloss as another Scottish army base.

“Overall, Scotland has a net gain of 2,500 posts. That dramatically increases the defence footprint in Scotland. Scotland has come out as a very handsome winner from the changes we have made. It is a very good result for this area and for Scotland as a whole,” he said.

The Defence Secretary’s warnings about the loss of defence jobs if Scotland voted to become independent came as Sir Mike Jackson, the Army’s former Chief of General Staff, rejected the SNP’s plans for sharing military services.

Sir Mike claimed that soldiers could have only one “political master” and he suggested that any Scottish army would have to be started from scratch. “You cannot have two nation states and two political masters,” he said.

On the future of the country’s existing defence jobs, he said: “The British Government could argue he [the First Minister, Alex Salmond] is not entitled to any troops as they are all sworn into the British Army.”

Scottish Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Ann McKechin, MP, claimed that the SNP’s plans for independence posed a greater threat to the country than the coalition’s defence review.
She said: “The idea that Scotland can break away from the United Kingdom but keep all the Army, Navy and RAF establishments, personnel and equipment is ludicrous. It won’t fool anyone. It is little wonder the SNP’s cloud cuckoo land plans have been rubbished by top UK Armed Forces chiefs.

“It’s time the SNP stopped misleading the Scottish public and came clean on what exactly their plans are for defence in a separated Scotland.”

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said: “The SNP is standing up for Scotland to have the optimal conventional defence footprint. Sadly the UK Government is slashing the number of RAF personnel in Scotland by more than 50 per cent, is withdrawing the Royal Marines from Scotland almost entirely and is closing a series of military facilities.”

John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, will visit RAF Leuchars today to discuss the impact of the loss of the base as an RAF facility.

BBC news report on Welsh Independence

2 August 2011 Last updated at 14:22

Independent Wales would be 39% richer, claims ex-MP

Adam Price said he would like to be involved in front-line politics again

People in Wales would be about 39% richer had it achieved independence more than 20 years ago, according to a report by a former Plaid Cymru MP.

Harvard University research fellow Adam Price's report claims Wales' economy would have grown by 2.5% a year if it had become independent around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

The Welsh Government has been asked to comment.

A Welsh Conservative economics advisor said it was "interesting".

Mr Price told BBC Radio Wales: "We have looked at the relationship between economic performance and country size.

'Small countries do better'

"What we find... there does seem to be this small country bonus. Basically, if you are small, over the last 30 years in the European Union, you do better."

He added: "If we had been independent in 1990, it would be interesting to see what we would have had in terms of an economic policy and what kind of sectors we would have developed.

"I think Ireland did a big study in the middle of the 1980s looking at the sectors that it should develop and that's the one thing I think that the Irish were very very good at back then."

Opinion polls consistently show about one in 10 people support independence for Wales.

Plaid has a long-term ambition for an independent Wales within the EU.

The report comes after small economies, such as Iceland and Ireland, were rocked by the worldwide financial crisis.

But Mr Price said Ireland was "still richer than Wales despite its current problems".

The former Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP said the report, commissioned by Plaid MEP Jill Evans, found "small countries do better", and economists were still "grappling" with the reasons why.

Front-line politics

He said one possible reason was that small countries become "natural exporters", adding: "Because of the nature of being small, you become an exporting entrepreneurial economy, the one thing Wales isn't at the moment."

Mr Price said smaller countries were "agile" and moved fast.

The former MP also confirmed he "would like to get back involved in front-line politics", saying he would like to serve if there was an "opportunity" at the next election.

The report, called The Flotilla Effect: Europe's small economies through the eye of the storm, claims to present "a number of new findings which will have a significant impact on the independence debate in Wales and Scotland, and the current discussions on the origins and consequences of the Euro-crisis".

Professor David Blackaby, of Swansea University's School of Business and Economics, said although some small countries had done well, their success was not necessarily due to their size.

"If you have got some natural advantage, human skills or physical resources, there's usually a reason why countries did well and it needn't necessarily be related to size," he said.

Professor Dylan Jones-Evans, economic advisor to the Welsh Conservatives and director of enterprise and innovation at the University of Wales, said it was an "interesting" piece of research.

He added: "Certainly what is missing in the paper is an assessment of whether a successful region within a national economy can perform better than, shall we say, a small independent nation of the same size, and that is sorely missing in the analysis".

He said Wales was the poorest nation in the UK, and had "deep structural problems, particularly within areas like the south Wales valleys that will probably take another generation to actually deal with, and any independent nation would have to focus on that".

Notes on the above BBC article by the Campaign for English Independence:

The CEI has no doubts at all about the claim that Wales as a historic nation should have independence.  The interesting point arising from the above is that the UK is inceasingly being seen as less than the sum of its parts.  In other words, at laest three of the four home nations would be be better off as independent nation states when the Union of the UK is consigned to history.

A Kirk Wedding for the MacWindors....

The Times editorial on 30 July 2011 commenting on a 'A Kirk Wedding'. i.e. that of Englishman Mike Tyndall and Englishwomen Zara Phillips which has taken place somewhere in the north of Britain, said:

"But despite the congregation invoking Blake’s vision “in England’s green and pleasant land”, today’s wedding will be a very Scottish affair, and all the better for it. Scotland is quietly proud of a royal family that is itself proud of its Scottish roots. James I (and VI) started the connection, which, despite a few hiccups (Bonnie Prince Charlie), has flourished, with royal tartan, royal Scottish regiments, a German prince nowhere more at home than in Balmoral and a centenarian Queen Mother who loved whisky, bagpipes and her Caithness castle. And, with Scottish conscientiousness, the royal bride will be back at work next week."

Reading the above, I think we may make two pretty safe assumptions:

• that the Murdoch family dominated News International business is seeking to win friends among the British elites and has put aside its usual reflex anti-Royal slant; and

• that the German family dominated firm - known to us under its local brand name of 'Windsor' - has taken a bet that Mr Salmond may well be leading Scotland out of the British Union in a few years' time and they must lose no time developing their Scottish franchise.

 Anyway, the Campaign for English Independence wishes this bright English couple the best of English luck.

RBS - what might these initials stand for?

Philip Hampton the Chairman of RBS is quoted by the newly reopened National Museum of Scotland as follows:

“We are delighted to be joining forces with the National Museums of Scotland. RBS has a Scottish heritage going back almost 300 years so it is natural that we should be supporting this great institution.  We have changed the way we do sponsorship and are working much more in partnership with organisations to ensure maximum community benefit. Through this collaboration with the National Museums of Scotland we are aiming to encourage people of all ages to learn about Scotland’s history and Scotland’s contribution to the world. The redevelopment of the Museum will transform this wonderful Scottish asset into one of the world’s great museums and RBS is very proud to be a partner.”

Questions arising from the above:

Question (i) Is any one able to name a large UK commercial group which boasts of its 300 years of English heritage? 

Answer: None of course do, in view of British institutional racism against England.

Question (ii) Why should RBS be making huge grants to any museum when it is in such a poor condition, with its share price reaching new lows?

Answer: please call Sir Philip Hampton's office for an explanation.

Question (iii) Why doesn't England have its own National Museum of England?

Answer: please see answer to question (i) above.

The Campaign gains activists ....

In a welcome and slightly surprising development, the Campaign has today been contacted by an English activist who with a number of colleagues has decided to advocate the cause of English independence by handing out leaflets (with text drawn from this website) on the streets and by speaking to community groups in England.

The Campaign welcomes this news.

England's independence needs to be associated with the call of her great people demanding both an English Parliament and our national independence.

Looks like the information and advocacy on the Campaign's website is finding resonance on some English streets and communities in England at laest, even at this early stage within a week of the launch of the Campaign.

Good news - share it!

BBC article - 'Sir John Major dresses in tartan for devolution argument'

‘Sir John Major dresses in tartan for devolution argument’

Text of BBC’s Nick Robinson on article on 9 July 2011

In a brief pause from the hacking furore I've just been reading a significant speech being delivered by the man who once declared that he was fighting the "Battle of Britain" and warned that there were just "72 hours to save the Union".

In a rare intervention into politics, former Prime Minister Sir John Major calls for the Scottish Parliament to be given powers to control everything except foreign affairs, defence and the economy.

Sir John warned against the dangers of devolution before the 1997 election. Today he calls for what some call "devo max".

If you are wondering why the former Tory leader's dressing in tartan, he explains that in return the English (and, of course, the Conservative Party) would see the end of the hated Barnett formula which gives Scotland more money to spend and a cut in the number of Scottish (usually Labour) MPs.

This may not seem like a live issue today, but it will be in the run-up to the next election. Scotland's re-elected First Minister Alex Salmond has always believed that the Tories were most likely to give him at least some of what he wanted.

This is how Sir John puts it:

"The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap - unless the issue is resolved.

"The union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.

'Shrinking military power'

"Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy? Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?

"My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly - bad for Scotland and bad for England - but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot - and should not - deny them."

Sir John's speech to the Ditchley Foundation also calls for appointed MPs - that's right, MPs not Lords - to bring expertise into Parliament, predicts that developments in Europe are likely to drive Britain further away from the EU and warns that the country's political classes are too obsessed by short-term politics and too complacent about the signs that the country is in long-term decline.

"In terms of GDP, the UK is the sixth most wealthy country in the world. But our national balance sheet carries many liabilities. Our physical infrastructure is old. Our health service is creaking. Whilst the best of our education - especially higher education - is world-class, some of it is unforgivably awful," he says.

"We are up to our ears in debt. The Exchequer is empty. The gold is gone. The post-dated cheques are accumulating interest. We are over-taxed. We have an under-class: poorly educated, poorly housed and unmotivated.

"We are no longer an Empire, nor will be ever again. We are a shrinking military power. By choice, and with majority public approval, we are semi-detached members of the EU. And even America - for so long our closest ally who generally sees the world as we do - is turning her face to the East, as self-interest determines she must."

The Campaign for English independence had the following comment (no. 54) published by the BBC in the comments to this article:

Andrew Constantine
9th July 2011 - 20:37

On 4 July last week a group of English patriots launched The Campaign for English Independence. Sir John is much too late in his intervention. The present British Union constitution is now just a mechanism for the British elites to avoid accountability. So 'Yes to English Independence' now. After all, why should England the mother of all Parliaments be denied her own English Parliament?