SNP: ‘The more seats we have here, the more powers we’ll have in Scotland.’

Thus runs the slogan on the first welcome image (reproduced below) displayed on the SNP’s website landing page. However, for the English this statement, given projections regarding the possible composition of the next House of Commons, would be better displayed next to the SNP’s peculiar logo, which looks for all the world like a noose.   

Opinion polls indicate that we are heading towards a second Parliament with no party possessing an overall majority. For a number of months, the national polls – at the headline level – have remained relatively static, but what has changed, as widely noted by commentators, is the situation in Scotland. As matters stand, the SNP is on track to oust Labour as the leading parliamentary party in the country, routing the latter in a number of its historic strongholds. Rather than laying to rest the question of Scotland’s constitutional status within the United Kingdom, last September’s Independence Referendum has bequeathed a situation in which the Scots have come to perceive themselves as very much separate to the rest of the UK, albeit whilst remaining part of it.

Much of this change in national self-perception can, perhaps, be attributed to the Westminster panic over the possibility of a ‘Yes’ vote, and the associated granting of additional concessions to the Scottish Parliament which amounted to the ‘Devo Max’ that had previously been denied as an option to Scots. Having woken up to the efficacy of voting SNP in leveraging additional powers and privileges from Westminster, Scottish voters seem intent to play the nationalist card in pursuit of further concessions from the rest of the UK, to pay for policies that are deemed unaffordable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Doubtless, Ed Miliband’s lacklustre leadership of the Labour Party and absence of a coherent political vision also plays poorly with Scottish voters when contrasted with an SNP, which is making a direct play for the traditional Labour vote north of the border. 

Amongst the SNP’s pledges is to continue to ensure that ‘There will be no tuition fees for Scottish students’. This situation understandably makes many English students envious and resentful, particularly so when considering that whereas English and Welsh students studying in Scottish universities have to pay fees equivalent to the maximum chargeable to domestic students in England and Wales - £9,000 per annum – if you happen to come from anywhere between Lisbon and Tallinn that happens to be part of the EU, you pay nothing. Not only that, but even ‘if you’re the child of a Turkish worker in the UK’ you can apply to have your tuition fees paid in full. You could not devise a more unjust anti-English system if you tried. Alongside this remarkable pledge, is a statement that the party wishes to see ‘a minimum income of at least £7,000 for the lowest income students’ (although presumably not for sub-Turkish English students).

This SNP approach to policy, with its pronounced anti-English tenor, spells trouble ahead. According to today’s UK Polling Report rolling average of polls, Labour stand on 33%, Conservatives on 31%, UKIP on 15%, the Liberal Democrats on 8% and the Greens on 6%. The others, amongst whom are included the SNP, account for the remaining 7%. However, whereas UKIP are highly likely to end up with far fewer seats than the Liberal Democrats, possibly winning a handful in total, the SNP, because of their natural concentration in Scotland, look set to play the role of power brokers, just as the Liberal Democrats have done since 2010. Such an electoral outcome will doubtless fuel pressure for both constitutional and electoral reform, given the far higher number of votes that will accrue to UKIP, but failing to yield electoral MPs. 

On 3 February, UK Polling Report reported that the four opinion polls carried out thus far this year in Scotland revealed the following stated voting intentions: Labour 27%, Liberal Democrats 5% and the SNP 47%. This represented swings of 21% from Labour and 20.5% from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP. However, swings are never uniform, so although the polls suggest a near if not complete wipe-out for Labour in Scotland this May, most pollsters believe that Labour will retain some seats. Nonetheless, it is generally anticipated that the SNP will take upwards of 40 Westminster seats if current voting intentions hold firm. This raises the spectre of a Miliband minority administration propped up by the SNP, possibly, depending upon the precise distribution of seats, also being reliant upon a cobbled together coalition including one or two Greens and the Liberal Democrats. This would probably be the worst possible outcome for the UK, running the risk of fracturing it irrevocably, whilst ceding further sovereignty to the EU and sinking ever further beneath the weight of near-untrammelled mass immigration. Who would pay for Scotland's spending spree, particularly during a time of likely declining North Sea oil income? 

A Labour minority Government with SNP support could sound the death knell for the United Kingdom. Wouldn’t Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon et al be delighted with the anti-democratic havoc that they could play with the Sassenachs! 

Channel 4’s Submission: ‘Islam: The Depressingly Familiar Story’

Update
Since the article below was written, it appears that Channel 4 relented and went ahead on Thursday night with the repeat showing of 'Islam: The Untold Story'. Whether or not the broadcaster will now ignore the threats and reinstate the special screening and attendant debate at its headquarters, remains to be seen. 

The decision of Channel 4 to pull a repeat showing of Tom Holland’s Islam: The Untold Story from the schedules is a depressing one, underscoring a growing and worrying trend in our country today expressive of an aggressive religious obscurantism articulated by resident Islamists. The broadcaster received circa 1,200 complaints about the programme, with the decision to cancel its repeat being explained as follows:

Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD.

Moreover, The Daily Mail reports that a further screening at Channel 4’s London HQ later this month, that was to be accompanied by a debate, has been cancelled owing to security fears. The two decisions, although in some respects understandable, amount to an effective surrender to the Islamists who issued the threats, demonstrating that a small and violently-inclined minority can have a hugely negative impact upon our public and intellectual life, which surely raises the question: why is it that we are constantly being told that all immigration ‘enriches’ us, when quite clearly some of it does not, and instead constitutes a direct threat to our way of life? With Channel 4’s announcement coming on the anniversary of 9/11 and Islamist mobs storming the US embassies in Libya and Egypt on the same day, the reality of the world around us teaches that Islam – in its literalist forms – is not something to be “celebrated” or  “respected”, but something to be wary of and abhorred. We do not share values with these people; rather, our values are diametrically opposed. To its discredit, the BBC has not even reported this story, possibly out of cowardice, but more likely out of its deep-rooted aversion to criticising any facet of Islam or Muslim behaviour.

As is to be expected of The Guardian, a paper that masquerades as ‘progressive’ but in fact provides active protection for, and propaganda on behalf of, the fastest growing anti-rational ideology in Britain today – Islam – its coverage of the story – penned by Ben Quinn – offered no support to Holland, or to the principle of free speech and academic enquiry, whilst simultaneously affording uncritical prominence to a tweet made by Inayat Bunglawala in which he described Holland’s analysis as constituting “bizarre conjecture about Islam’s birthplace”. Seeking to ascertain the facts – so far as they can be ascertained – regarding the origins of Islam and the alleged historicity of its founding figure, does not strike me as “bizarre”, but rather as the correct approach to the subject. Only one of the “faithful” and “devout”, such as Bunglawala, who has swallowed Islamic doctrine and tradition wholesale, could find anything “bizarre” about Holland’s salient observations regarding the absence of contemporaneous sources testifying to the existence of Mohammed, both inside and outside of the Muslim world.

This, of course, is not to say that he did not exist as a historical figure, but that if he did, it is peculiar that he left no trace in the historical record. As such, he may be no more historical a figure than Woden in the Anglo-Saxon historical tradition. However, whereas my doubt with respect to the historical reality of Woden does not cause any existential disquiet to me as an Englishman, the suggestion that Mohammed as a historical personage may not have existed, does not appear to be as phlegmatically received by the greater part of Muslims. Then again, my doubting in the existence of Woden does not entail any threat to my Englishness, whereas if a Muslim were to doubt the existence of Mohammed and his ‘divine’ mission, this would threaten the very basis of their faith and identity itself. It is a matter that could cause some believers to lose their heads, as quite clearly, a number have on this occasion; whipping themselves up into an hysterical state of offence, complaining about Holland’s treatment of their religious tradition, and even going so far as to threaten his physical safety. How peculiar it is that we constantly hear Muslim voices stating that we “should respect Islam”, for respect cannot be demanded, but can only be earned; threats of violence and demands for the silencing of rational critics of dogma and its negative associated cultural practices, deserve not so much our respect, as our contempt. 

Tom Holland

Scottish Independence: Desirable?

Gordon Brown has been so silent since the last General Election, at least in the domestic context, that you could almost be forgiven for forgetting that he had ever existed. Just what has he been up to these past two years? Still, given the damage that he managed to inflict upon the country when he was in a position to influence policy and public affairs, it is just as well that he has kept his head down since 2010. Yesterday however, the former Prime Minister broke his silence to voice his opinions on the subject of Scottish independence, which in a rare moment of concurrence proved in a number of respects not to be so far removed from my own. In short, Brown is against the dissolution of the Union.

Brown opined that an independent Scotland would be a poorer Scotland, that would lose not only the economic benefits of being part of the UK, but would also lose the geopolitical clout that being a member of the Union bestows. Scotland’s Daily Record quoted him as saying:

If you break up the fiscal union, the sharing and pooling of resources across the UK, then it’s clear that you will either have to cut public expenditure massively beyond what is being done at the moment or you will have to tax Scottish people more.

Quite clearly, the removal of the subsidy channelled through the Barnett Formula would subtract a significant amount of money from Scotland’s budget, although this claim is disputed by Alex Salmond’s SNP owing to the party’s stated intent of seizing the bulk of North Sea oil revenue for Scotland alone. However, Salmond’s insistence that Scotland would wish to retain Stirling as its currency indicates that the SNP truly does wish to have its cake and eat it.

The current devolved constitutional settlement created by the last Labour Government is neither just nor sustainable; it is in need of a considerable overhaul, but stopping short of the dissolution of the Union. Naturally, should the Scots, or the Welsh or Ulster come to that, wish to secede from the UK then it should be their sovereign right to do so. For the English however, they are in the unfortunate situation of having no say in the matter, for unlike Scotland, Wales or Ulster, they do not possess a parliament or assembly of their own, having to make do with Westminster which of course affords representation to all of the other constituent nations of the Union. The English, should they wish to do so, could neither therefore secede from the UK nor from the EU for they possess no representative body.

One party has as its primary concern the creation of a specifically English parliament – the English Democrats – and in the past year UKIP too has toyed with this idea. However, such an institution is not necessary to disentangle ourselves from the devolutionary mess in which we find ourselves. What we should aim for instead, is for Westminster to be both the English and UK Parliament, but for Scottish, Welsh and Ulster MPs to be debarred from voting on matters of policy that are devolved to their own institutions such as education and health, with English MPs alone voting upon, and devising policies for England, in these spheres. MPs from the devolved nations would still retain voting rights in matters relating to foreign policy and other aspects of non-devolved policy. Such a solution would be equitable, truly democratic and would also preserve the Union. However, as Scotland, Wales and Ulster possess the right to secede, this right ought also to be granted to England and the English Parliament at Westminster. It would also ensure – for better or for worse – that the UK could maintain its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, for membership would almost certainly not be inherited by a rump Union under England’s leadership in the event of Scotland’s secession. Although the Russian Federation inherited the USSR’s permanent seat following the dissolution of the latter state at the end of 1991, this pattern would not be replicated for a truncated UK.

Scottish independence could lead to a host of problems, not least, should a party ever come to power in England with the serious intent of tackling the question of mass immigration, by introducing the potential need for border controls between the two states. Given the SNP’s desire to increase Scotland’s population through mass immigration – a curiously anti-national position for any self-avowed nationalist party to take – such a system of border controls would regrettably have to be imposed.

The Union between England and Scotland came into formal existence in 1707, but with the exception of the Interregnum, the two countries have been united under the same crown since 1603. Both have gained much from the Union, and would also have much to lose were it to end. 

The Economist's humorous and controversial take on an independent Scotland: 'Skintland'

 

Ed Miliband’s bloodless Conception of Englishness

This morning Ed Miliband delivered a speech at the Royal Festival Hall, ostensibly addressing the question of England and its relationship to the United Kingdom, even touching upon the nature of English identity whilst predictably recoiling from recognising the English as a distinct people. Naturally, the fate of the United Kingdom is of rather more than theoretical concern to the Labour Party, for if Scotland were to become independent, it would remove a large tranche of Labour MPs from Westminster, perhaps depriving the party of the chance to again form a government in a truncated union or England.

That Miliband has bothered to mention England and the English highlights growing Labour concern that the party has lost touch with the English working class, and must be seen as in all likelihood prompted by Jon Cruddas who is working on a policy review intended to renew Labour’s appeal to its traditional support base. Whereas Miliband’s speech was not billed as such, its content could thus be viewed as presaging the tentative introduction of the ‘Blue Labour’ concept (although 'Blue Labour' is said to have been "effectively disbanded" in July 2011, the party would be wise to heed its recommendations with respect to immigration and its critique of neoliberalism) of which Cruddas is said to be one of the leading exponents, occupying to a certain extent the territory claimed by the ‘Red Tory’ idea. Although both seek to capitalise upon a sense of English alienation from mainstream political parties generated by the latter’s promotion of globalisation and mass immigration, the ‘Blue Labour’ and ‘Red Tory’ approaches affect concern about these issues, whilst neither tackling them nor wishing to do so. Each is fashioned so as to present a reassuring message to the electorate, an anodyne for the dying English patient which is being ushered out of existence to make way for new blood from overseas.

Returning to the ‘substance’ of Ed Miliband’s speech, he emphasised how he believes that “multiple allegiances” are stronger than single ones and that the “debate about nationhood and identity can’t be left to one part of the United Kingdom.” As ever, although this speech was billed as being about England and Englishness, Miliband could not restrain his enthusiasm for globalist internationalism from breaking through, referring to the need “to embrace a positive outward looking version of English identity” and an outward looking patriotism. Heaven forbid that the English should for a moment reflect and perceive themselves to be a distinct nation and people bound by common ties of culture, history, language and descent!

Miliband, as in previous speeches, employed the parental refugee theme, outlining his parents’ flight from Nazism and subsequent settlement in England, which whilst offering them “a new home . . . allowed them to stay true to who they were.” In this way, he underscored his belief in multiculturalism: “Britain is a country where you can have more than one identity; more than one home.” Yes, that is the case, but it does not strike me as desirable for swathes of the population here not only to self-identify as Pakistanis, but to also possess Pakistani passports, Pakistani attitudes and a Pakistani animus towards the English. “Multiple allegiances” in this case are no “source of strength”, but rather one of discord and weakness.

One of the most striking aspects of Miliband’s speech was that he repeatedly referred to the Scots, the Welsh and the English and the “false choice” that was proffered between these various identities and Britishness. Of course, in this respect he is correct, for we are all native peoples of the island of Britain and thus by definition simultaneously a member of one of these three peoples and British, but it did seem to be telling that he did not acknowledge the real problems that can arise from cleft identities nurtured by multiculturalism such as ‘British’-Somali or ‘British’-Pakistani, etc.

In mentioning English culture, Miliband emphasised that musicians, artists and scientists were characterised by their “constantly moving across national boundaries”, and his speech was peppered with references to being “outward looking” and “internationalist”. In other words, whilst purporting to address and acknowledge the importance of England and Englishness, Miliband was simultaneously reducing England to a territorial expression and Englishness to a bloodless malleable cultural construct essentially devoid of substance, continuity and distinctiveness. By adopting such a vapid approach to the question of England and Englishness, Miliband was thereby able to talk about “English identity [which for the Labour Party] has tended to be a completely closed book that people have shied away from.” Although Miliband may today have opened a book whose cover displayed the Cross of St George, its contents consisted of the same old Labour globalist internationalism. Whilst those such as Miliband may think that Englishness consists of nothing more than a flag and a bit of bunting, the English themselves know this not to be the case.