Plaid Cymru and Welsh Devolution: Good for Wales?

Plaid Cymru’s annual conference came to an end yesterday with the party declaring that it would focus on achieving a “Green New Deal” for Wales. Whatever the merits of such a goal, one thing remains clear: Wales is not performing well economically and is overly dependent upon the public sector; it requires new productive investment to provide jobs and wealth, but is Plaid the party to deliver this? Being a self-declared Welsh nationalist party, it would not be unnatural to think that it should seek to pursue the best policies on behalf of the Welsh people, but does it? It has certainly been losing support, as illustrated by the National Assembly for Wales election results last year where it slipped from second to third place behind the Conservatives.

Welsh devolution: lacking legitimacy?

The devolutionary settlement imposed by Labour and maintained by the Cameron administration has added an additional tier of bureaucracy to Welsh government and the delivery of public services. Devolution itself was passed by a hair’s breadth, with 50.3% of those participating in the 1997 referendum voting “Yes”, and 49.7% “No”. Turnout was low at 50.1%, so the new constitutional arrangement was actively endorsed by only one quarter of the Welsh electorate. This can hardly be adjudged to have provided a clear democratic mandate, given the significant implications of the vote. In 2011 another referendum took place, this time upon the question of whether the National Assembly for Wales should possess direct law-making powers which superficially delivered a clearer result than in 1997: 63.5% voted “Yes”, and 36.5% “No”. However, the turnout in 2011 was a meagre 35.4%, representing 22.5% of the Welsh electorate, an even lower proportion than in the 1997 referendum. Taking this into account, both devolution and the strengthening of the National Assembly’s law-making powers lack a clear democratic mandate, and the results of the second vote could be said to have been significantly influenced by the desire of Welsh voters to wrest power from Westminster during a period of Conservative dominated government, given that in 2010 26 of Wales’s 40 MPs were Labour.

Devolution and Language Policy: Cultural and Economic Aspects

That many in Wales wish to preserve the Welsh language as a facet of their identity is understandable, and what happened historically, when Welsh schoolchildren were often punished for speaking Welsh in the playground, was clearly wrong. As one of the Celtic languages which were once widespread across much of Europe but are now confined to some of its western fringes, Welsh is a part of the European linguistic heritage worthy of preservation. That said, the manner in which some advocates of Welsh have in recent years sought to revive the fortunes of their flagging tongue cannot be viewed in such a positive light: compulsory Welsh-language medium teaching in a number of schools (particularly in Gwynedd) and legislation stipulating Welsh language proficiency for job applicants in the public sector and the “fully bilingual” provision of public services are heavy-handed measures that possess significant drawbacks. There is a difference between preserving and promoting Welsh, and imposing it. These measures impose Welsh, irrespective of whether or not this imposition is desired by the majority of Welsh residents.

There exists a clear linguistic divide in Wales between the predominantly English-speaking south and east and the Welsh-speaking north and west, and it is in Gwynedd that support for the promotion of the Welsh language is at its strongest. The 2001 census showed that 69% of Gwynedd’s population spoke Welsh, with this figure rising to 88.6% amongst the 3-15 age group, the latter higher percentage presumably being the outcome of the imposition of Welsh-medium language schooling in the local authority. In 2004, only 21.7% of the population of Wales claimed to be “fairly fluent” in Welsh, with only 57% of these (12.4% of the population) claiming to be “fluent”. Given the modest levels of Welsh language competence in the country, the legislation connected to the promotion and imposition of Welsh does not appear to be in proportion to the demand, and in South Wales these measures elicit a considerable degree of popular apathy or outright opposition owing to their unnecessary nature.

Welsh has been accorded the status of an “officially recognised language”, and in 2011 the Welsh Language Measure came into force which stated that Welsh must be treated on an equal footing with English. Further legislation is being prepared with respect to its implementation in 2013 which stipulates the provision of “fully bilingual services” with onerous obligations being imposed upon not only public services, but also private sector businesses in receipt of more than £400,000 in public funds. The BBC reported that this legislation “means a Welsh speaker could expect to receive correspondence and phone calls in Welsh, along with accessing Welsh-speaking doctors and carers” and that non-compliant firms “would be fined” up to £5,000. In effect, this new language legislation will mean that the majority of Welsh residents will be disqualified from applying for a wide range of jobs in their own country because of discriminatory language legislation which will debar them from the public sector and many roles in the private sector. Moreover, this will impose considerable unnecessary costs to both public services and private business at a time of economic hardship. These measures are neither good for the Welsh economy nor the Welsh people; their application outside of majority Welsh-speaking areas is particularly inappropriate, and they should be abandoned.

Although Welsh should be offered as a subject in schools, it should not be the medium of instruction, for pupils would be better off using English which opens up greater opportunities for them across the country as a whole, rather than restricting their horizons only to Wales. Moreover, the situation in North Wales is such that many families attached to the armed forces have had to take the extraordinary measure of sending their children to private schools because the state sector provides only Welsh-medium teaching. Across Wales, approximately one quarter of pupils attend Welsh-medium schools.

Welsh language policy could also act as a brake upon inward investment to Wales, with companies unwilling to incur the additional costs that it imposes. Plaid Cymru therefore, by pushing this largely undesired linguistic policy, is harming the economic interests of Wales as a whole, and the individual job prospects of the majority of Welsh people by excluding them from particular posts which are being reserved for Welsh speakers. This is the true face of discrimination in Wales today, which is being justified through reference to the fictitious ‘needs’ of non-existent Welsh-speaking monoglots. Nonetheless, the South Wales Police Authority is pressing ahead with a ‘Welsh Language Scheme’, so funds that could have been put to use in support of policing are in effect being diverted into an unnecessary aspect of cultural policy, for South Wales is not a Welsh-speaking region.

Perhaps one reason why there has been a reluctance for political parties to challenge Welsh language policy, is the fear of potential violent opposition to such a stance occasioned by the example of the terrorist campaign waged by a small band of militants calling themselves the Sons of Glendower (Meibion Glyndŵr), who in the 12 years following 1979 were responsible for 228 arson attacks. Although that campaign was specifically directed at English second-home owners and estate agents, presumably, such people could be sufficiently motivated to engage in acts of violence to preserve policies favouring the promotion of the Welsh language.  

Conclusion

Plaid Cymru does not offer the people of Wales what they require. Welsh voters are currently in the unfortunate position of finding themselves without a viable political choice, with there being no party that will offer to repeal the discriminatory and economically damaging Welsh language measures that are being imposed. Moreover, they are not being offered the opportunity to vote for the dissolution of the National Assembly for Wales, and thereby benefiting from the considerable savings that this would entail. However, it is the intention to make such a political choice available in the near future, and if you would like to become involved, your are more than welcome to do so.

Property destroyed by Meibion Glyndŵr

Census indicates surge in Muslim population

Today saw the release of the first data sets from the 2011 census by the Office for National Statistics, and whereas early indications were that the population of England and Wales would have surged by more than three million, the actual figure turned out to be higher than officially expected: an increase of 3.7 million. This was the fastest rate of population increase measured since the first census was taken in 1801, and takes the average population density for England to 407 people per square kilometre. If we exclude the essentially urban microstates of Monaco, the Vatican and Malta, England is now the most densely populated country in Europe, closely followed by the Netherlands at 404 per square kilometre. This increase is alarming, and all three of the parties of government that have presided over this increase must acknowledge responsibility for this unacceptable de facto open borders policy (see a statement by David Willetts in December last year advocating an influx of labour).

The data thus far released deal only with "age and sex, and occupied households estimates for England and for Wales". The more interesting data on ethnicity and religion it would seem will not be forthcoming for quite some time. What is clear though is that the vast proportion of the population increase will have been driven by immigration and higher fertility amongst sections of the immigrant-descended population. An alarming indication of what to expect is provided by the identities of the two local authorities with the fastest population growth rates in England: Tower Hamlets and Newham. In 2001, Newham had the second highest proportion of Muslims in the UK at 24.3% of the total, whereas Tower Hamlets, according to 2010 estimates, was 36.4% Muslim. Likewise, Bradford has displayed an increase significantly higher than the national norm. What clearer illustration of demographic Islamisation could be provided?

The census has demonstrated that England has suffered disproportionately from mass immigration, with the increase in its population accounting for 3.56 million of the 3.72 million total. This is not only undesirable, but completely unsustainable and reckless. The natural dynamics of our native population can be seen in the ONS graph below, for if we look at the figures for 1971 to 1981, we see a slight decline. This is the population trajectory towards which we should be aiming, considering the gross overpopulation of our country. Irrespective of the figures contained in the census, there is one overriding certainty: they represent a significant underestimate of the true figure. Many will not have bothered to complete the census return, including obviously those who have arrived here illegally. What their numbers are, we cannot hazard to say with any degree of accuracy, but at a minimum we should reckon upon a million illegal immigrants. According to one report that appeared in The Independent in 2007, senior and reliable sources claimed that the UK population was already between 77 and 80 million. The latter figure certainly tallied with the reckoning of one of the country's large supermarket chains.

Mass immigration has contributed towards an absurd situation in which we are told repeatedly that even at a time of extensive flooding we need to cut down on our domestic water consumption, and that compulsory metering is the answer. Then there is the pressure on our housing stock, for even in Wales for example, a story ran on the BBC website two days ago revealing that planners project that Cardiff's population will rise by a quarter by 2026 and have thus allocated land for the construction of 45,000 new homes. If that is to happen in Wales, what will happen in England? Our countryside, with its distinctive landscape, its farms and wildlife are under threat from our leaders' addiction to population growth. What of the permanent phenomenon of mass unemployment that bedevils our country, and of the underemployment of many graduates? Are these concerns to be ignored as irrelevant and "unscientific", swept aside by an oligrarchic elite that cares not about the welfare of the people it claims to represent? Probably.

England, of course, is not the only country to be buckling under the weight of immigration originating predominantly from outside of Europe, for the arrival of a vast number of illegal immigrants from countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, is in Greece placing an intense strain upon a state and people already in grave crisis.

As to the reporting of these initial census results, the BBC, as is its wont, is not referring to "immigration", but to "migration"; this difference in linguistic usage being quite intentional, "migration" being employed with a view to making this unprecedented phenomenon appear to be in the natural order of things, and to be legitimate. It is in fact, neither. The most objective reporting of these results by a well-known body is likely to be forthcoming from Migration Watch.The Balkanisation of our country continues apace.

UPDATE: For the 2011 Census results relating to the Muslim population, click here.

England's high-density housing: we deserve better

England and Wales Police Crime Website Crashes

Have you managed to successfully visit http://www.police.uk/ today? I’ve not. Apparently, traffic has been so heavy that the servers have been unable to cope. According to a BBC report, it has been receiving up to five million hits per hour, which, it must be said is pretty high. It certainly bears testimony to the public’s interest in crime in their immediate neighbourhood. The crime-mapping website covers England and Wales but does not, so far as I am aware, include a facility to look into bank boardrooms.

Is it a good thing? I’m not so sure. For example, if you were a burglar might you not choose to use the site to identify streets which had not already been plundered? It could therefore make for an excellent burglar’s resource, which does seem to have been something of an oversight on the part of its designers.

Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 1

Introduction
Following months of rancour within the BNP, a group of reformists has announced the creation of the British Freedom Party (BFP). Its founding has been precipitated by their failure to effectively challenge Nick Griffin’s hold on the leadership of the party and to introduce mechanisms for the democratic formulation of party policy and the appointment of key personnel. Furthermore, there were questions connected to a lack of transparency relating to party accounts and allegations of an absence of financial probity at the top of the party.

Thus, the imperative for the emergence of the new party was not ideological, but procedural. The BFP is therefore presumably what its founders would have liked the BNP to have become had the Nick Griffin/Jim Dowson clique either stepped down or been dislodged. That said, one of the leading voices amongst the BFP is Lee Barnes, the BNP’s former ‘legal eagle’, who fell out with Griffin then swiftly fell in with the reformist camp led by Eddy Butler who sought to challenge Griffin for the party leadership. Being a prolific blogger and commentator on nationalist forums, Barnes has to date been the main source of information about the BFP and its ideological stance. For Barnes, the BFP is not a party founded upon racial nationalism, ethno-nationalism or civic nationalism, but upon cultural nationalism. In effect, this is a beefed-up civic nationalism with a greater emphasis upon the cultural assimilation of the immigrant population.

The objectives of the BFP published on the Advanced Ape blog are certainly ones to which I subscribe:

The objects of the Party shall exist to defend and restore the freedoms, traditions, unity, identity, democracy and independence of the British people, to establish full sovereignty over all our national affairs by restoring the supremacy of the British Parliament, to withdraw from the European Union, to promote democratic British nationalist principles, to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural interests of the British people and to preserve and promote the ancestral rights and liberties of the British people as enshrined in the British Constitution.

The BFP now enters a crowded field of parties touting for the nationalist vote, for besides the BNP there are also UKIP, the English Democrats, the National Front (NF) and the England First Party (EFP). There are probably other miniscule groupings that I have not mentioned, but if I’ve not heard of them, you can guarantee that they certainly will not make a breakthrough. Besides these, we have the anti-Islamisation street movement of the English Defence League (EDL). None, in my opinion, possess the right mix of policies, objectives and organisation to be able to make a mainstream breakthrough at the current time. All lack credibility. What is equally clear is that there has never been a greater need for a moderate nationalist party to break through into the mainstream. Before proceeding to outline why, it will first be necessary to clarify my terms.

Why Nationalism? What is Nationalism?
I recognise that my reasons for favouring nationalism will not be shared by many others who describe themselves as nationalists, and this of course grows out of the fact that what is meant by the term ‘nationalism’ is hotly disputed and possesses a wide variety of definitions. So, before venturing further I shall provide a definition of what I consider to be a ‘nation’ (as those of you familiar with theoretical writings on this subject will note, my position shares a great deal with that of A.D. Smith), but given the limited scope of this piece I shall at this stage neither go into great depth nor provide bibliographic citations in line with standard academic practice as used in the Harvard System.

An ethnie is a group defined by a combination of common biological descent, common culture and common history. These are the preconditions upon which a collective ethnic sentiment is forged and rests; without these, there can be no distinct ‘we’. A nation is a politically mobilised ethnie that is either in possession of a state, is actively seeking statehood, or has lost statehood and is seeking its restoration. Mobilisation thus proceeds upon the basis of securing the interests (however they may be defined) of the nation as a whole. Nationalism therefore represents the purest form of democratic politics, for the nation and the demos and their interests are identified as one. Without seeking to further the interests of the nation, politicians of whatever stated hue are acting against the well-being of the demos, and are thus by definition anti-democrats. Politicians and journalists who act against the interests of the nation use pejorative terms such as ‘populism’ and ‘demagoguery’ to stigmatise the genuine articulation of the people’s interests and opinions by anti-oligarchic rivals.

Nationalism therefore, is nothing more than the political pursuit of the well-being of the members of a given nation. It is the purest expression of democratic principles and thus stands opposed to oligarchy and globalism. Thus, unlike what its leftist detractors claim, nationalism is not an ideology of ‘hate’; nationalism is not ‘xenophobic’; nationalism is not synonymous with imperialism (in fact, genuine nationalists deplore imperialism for they recognise the rights of other nations to self-determination and free political expression) and nationalism is not ‘racist’. Nationalism defines itself in a positive fashion by pursuing what is best for the people collectively, not through seeking conflict with other nations.

Nationalism seeks to liberate the potential of all members of the nation, not of any one class or special interest group. This is why those on the Left detest nationalism, for they are wedded to the belief that international class identities trump all others, and that nations should be ‘smashed’ to usher in their Socialist or Communist Millennium. Nationalism stands for pluralism and true diversity, whereas the visions of leftists and capitalist globalists seek a totalitarian uniformity.

I therefore define myself as a nationalist because I wish to see the best for the members my nation collectively; the nation provides the best context in which individuals can flourish and reach their full potential. I wish to see other peoples also concern themselves with building better lives and futures for their own nations. Nationalism represents the best path for the whole of humanity, and does not in and of itself lead to conflict.

Nationalism is not imperialism. Nationalism is not fascism. Nationalism is not Nazism. Nationalism does not entail ethnic cleansing. Nationalism is democracy in action. Nationalism promotes the conservation of resources and the environment. Nationalism is diversity.

Globalism generates hate. Globalism generates conflict. Globalism facilitates economic imperialism. Globalism is oligarchy in action. Globalism promotes the degradation of resources and the environment. Globalism is uniformity.

Which Nation is Mine?
For all of the above reasons I am a nationalist, but of what type? I am English. In those three words there is much significance, for although I also see myself as British, as European and more widely (moving into the realm of ideological belonging) a Westerner and a rationalist, the ‘English’ element denotes what I consider to be my nationality. Strangely though, although the English are arguably one of the oldest nations, they do not currently possess a statehood of their own, being instead cemented into the UK and the EU. Within the UK the Scots, the Welsh and the Unionist and Republican populations of Ulster all possess their own distinct forms of in-group ethnic sentiment as well as political expression in their own assemblies and, in the Scottish case, Parliament. The English on the other hand, have to make do with Westminster which of course represents the whole of the UK. In this respect therefore, the English can technically be said to lack a political existence as a nation.

Devolution has created a situation in which distinct political dynamics have been established in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales (the situation in Ulster has always been different), which mean that they increasingly see themselves as separate from England. They also have their own ostensible nationalist parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, which are in reality defined exclusively through opposition to England and the English because otherwise they embrace multiculturalism and do not therefore behave in the manner of true nationalist parties. The launch of a British rather than an English Freedom Party thus seems to me to be a tactical mistake. England has borne the brunt of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, and it is in England that there exists the greatest pent up demand for a true national democratic party. An English Freedom Party could still be a unionist party, but, any continuation of the United Kingdom needs to be one that is ratified by its composite nations and, irrespective of its outcome, England needs a parliament of its own.