- 75,000 – Government’s Official Projection of Lockdown Deaths
- The Peoples Brexit (1) Dr Kevin Corbett (2) Stephen Morris (3) - v – Secretary of State Health & Social Care (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) Constitutional and Social Care Public Law Team (3)
- Lockdown Sceptics - Newsletter
- The government's eco-edict that all new cars be electric in 15 years is doomed to backfire - because old bangers can be greener, says JOHN NAISH
- We’ve left the EU as a matter of law: now we need to leave it in practice
Here is a speech given by David Wildgoose on behalf of the C.E.P. to the English Democrats conference, i liked it so much I thought I would share it with you all.
George Robertson is not a stupid man. I think his finest moment came shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The USA spends as much money on its armed forces as the rest of the world put together. They had been attacked and they were ready, able and willing to lash out in response – up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. Needless to say, the world was holding its breath.
Enter George Robertson.
In theory, NATO was a mutual defence organisation set up primarily to counter the threat posed by the Warsaw Pact countries led by the USSR. In practise, the United States provides the bulk of its military capability and NATO membership also provides a convenient excuse for why so much of its military firepower is based abroad in member countries – something that historically would have been viewed as akin to a military occupation, (and for that matter, is still viewed in that manner by some).
That’s the theory. The reality of course, is the United States was and is pre-eminent, able to act without military constraint – and they had just been viciously attacked.
Enter George Robertson, NATO’s Secretary General.
By insisting on invoking NATO’s mutual defence clause that declared that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all, he managed to give the United States pause and to ensure that a calmer and more considered collective response was the result.
So, given that George Robertson is clearly not a stupid man, what on Earth possessed him to make the ludicrous comment that “Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead”?
After all, his fellow Scottish Labour MP Tam Dalyell famously described Devolution as “a motorway to Independence with no U-turns and no exits”. Moreover, Ron Davies, the architect of Welsh Devolution, said it “is a process and not an event” – that is, presumably, an ongoing transformation whose only clear end-point is Independence.
So how do we makes any kind of sense of the matter?
They knew what they were doing. It is clear they knew what they were doing, obvious to all and sundry. So perhaps a clever politician, concerned about what the History Books might write about him, decided to get his excuse in early? To suggest that his motives were never less than honourable and well-meaning?
Except of course, we English folk already know that with the exception of Tam Dalyell, all the Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs at that time were anything but honourable and well-meaning. After all, they signed a public oath in the so-called “Scottish Claim of Right”, declaring that they would put the interests of Scotland before all else. Not the UK, and certainly not England. Scotland alone. Scotland pre-eminent. And in this, they have indeed been true to their words.
Scotland’s MPs have long acted as a block vote. One example of this was when they ensured Speaker Martin was elected simply because he was Scottish – and openly boasted that that was what they were doing, even placing bets on it. And there are many more examples.
The current Liberal Democrat leader is famously European and most definitely not English. His predecessor, Menzies Campbell, was Scottish. His predecessor, Charles Kennedy, was Scottish. His predecessor, “Paddy” Ashdown, was Northern Irish. His predecessor, David Steel, was Scottish.
Let’s look at Labour. Labour’s last leader, Gordon Brown, was Scottish. His predecessor, Tony Blair, was Scottish. His predecessor, John Smith, was Scottish. His predecessor, Neil Kinnock, was Welsh.
Even the Tories exhibit the pattern. The current Tory leader is half-Scottish and has famously talked of how proud he is of the “Scottish blood in his veins” and how he intends to “stand up to the sour little Englanders”. His predecessor, Ian Duncan Smith, is Scottish. His predecessor, William Hague, is actually English. And when he became leader we saw the furious reaction that it was not appropriate for someone with a Yorkshire, that is, an English accent, to aspire to be Prime Minister.
Looking at that record, you wouldn’t believe that 85% of the UK population is English, would you? It does rather seem as if you can only succeed in politics if you aren’t English (and are preferably Scottish), or if you publicly disassociate yourself from the English – such as Jack Straw and his infamous comments that the English used their “propensity for violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”.
Some subjugation, eh?
Perhaps that is why Thatcher’s government was such a shock to them. For once, they weren’t in control. I watched an excellent new series on BBC4 recently, called “The Sound and the Fury”, about modern classical music. They had a female Scottish academic making some observations. Remember that this was a recent programme about modern classical music and yet there she was, having a rant about Margaret Thatcher, a completely unrelated subject and someone who hasn’t even been in power for over 22 years!
It is no secret that they were determined to ensure this could never happen again and so they decided to re-fashion the Union so as to guarantee Scottish dominance. A separate Scottish Parliament to look after Scotland’s interests whilst they worked to undermine England and English unity, beginning by breaking England up into competing artificial “regions”. It’s not for nothing that the former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, (another Scot who signed the “Scottish Claim of Right”), when speaking at a conference in Scotland was applauded as he exulted that Devolution was intended to “call into question the idea of England itself”.
And as Andrew Neather’s boasts showed, and despite Labour’s protestations only this week, it was not accidental but rather a deliberate policy to flood England with immigrants, undercutting the wages of the working classes, taking their jobs, their housing, their hospital beds and their school places. When Mrs Duffy tried to take Gordon Brown to task over this matter he merely sneered that she was “a bigoted old woman”.
We know all this. Damning as it is, all these facts are a matter of public record. What is not a matter of public record though, are the British Cabinet discussions with regards to Devolution and its intentions. Only two such Cabinet discussions have been sealed and refused disclosure despite repeated Freedom of Information Requests. One is the discussion prior to our joining in the War on Iraq – something which has ongoing international sensitivities, and so is understandable. The other, is the Devolution discussions. So, given everything else we already know, that they have already admitted, just how explosive must they be for them to be so desperate to keep them under lock and key?
We already know that they didn’t have our best interests at heart. It seems pretty clear that our Scottish ruling classes intended to breakup and subjugate England within an unbalanced Union dominated by a united Scotland. In Gordon Brown’s memorable phrasing, to make us just “the regions of Britain”. However the desperation to keep the Cabinet Devolution Discussions hidden implies that it wasn’t just about ensuring Scottish dominance, it must also have been fired by deliberate anti-English malice.
Now we begin to understand George Robertson’s comment that “Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead”. Nationalism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has always been anti-English. They intended to kill this Nationalism by killing England.
What they didn’t count on was that England still has her own patriots. First of all, the cross-party Campaign for an English Parliament, founded in 1998 in direct opposition to their Devolution plans. And then in 2002, the English Democrats, determined to take the fight to the ballot box itself. Still the only major party campaigning for an English Parliament and seeking to defend England’s interests.
We are all standing up for England