PaulRogan

Without the media having to point it out to us, we will all have noticed how often Gordon punctuates all speeches on all themes with the word Britain. I remember in one single speech it was recorded over 100 times. Why should this be? If our Prime Minister wanted to be politically correct, why does he not use the word ‘United Kingdom'? It is after all the name we use at the United Nations where we cling onto our permanent seat on the Security Council by our fingertips. Perhaps because this seat has been set aside in Gordon's future plans for the United Socialist States of Europe? (I will hold a referendum on the European Constitution, watch my lips, i didnt say Treaty)

This speculation aside, by looking back into the history of the word ‘Britain' we might find an answer. A certain fact is that our PM is not English, the most populous by far of the ‘Home Nations'.

‘Britons' was the name given by the Romans to the variety of Celts (Brythons) who occupied most of Great Britain and parts of the Continent, most notably Brittany. This term excluded the Irish Celts (Gaels) and the Picts of Western Scotland but it did include the ‘Scots'.

Some of the Kingdom's subjects living in Northern Ireland may speculate that there is perhaps another underlying future policy when the PM says ‘Britain'. That being to unite Ireland and exclude them?

After the Romans withdrew, a wide variety of Germanic tribes took over and settled what may be considered today as England. These peoples included Angles, Saxons, Friesians, Jutes and a few Franks. From the Angles we derive the name England. In general terms we refer to all these folk as Anglo-Saxons. The Romanised Brythons were pushed North and West into what is roughly today, Scotland and Wales. Could it therefore be understood, that when the PM uses ‘Britain' it is because he secretly harbours a wish that the ancient Celts will once again re-occupy all of Great Britain? No, of course not. It is more a case that we, the People of England are now subjugated to a Brython rule. Well, at least thats what Bede might have written had he been alive to hear the Scottish accents of our Government's rulers.

It seems much of the Country turns upon the function of imparting knowledge to our children. The roads seem more than twice as busy, there is a seed change in attitudes and activities once the Nations schools are open again after the Yule (or any other) holidays.

On the political front, it seems our leaders, invigorated by having the kids around, burst forth with new ideas and initiatives to solve the Nations problems and the TV gives them airtime instead of the children's cartoons.

Unemployment, financial crisis, immigration, healthcare, and a whole host of other chestnuts are again pulled out of the fire.

Wouldn't an ideal panacea to all these issues and many more, be to seriously address the education system and raise the school leaving age to 18?

I can think of many arguments in favour, not the least of which is to better address the transition of England from the world's first industrial Nation to a settled, non-industrialised, service economy. England was the first Country to industrialise and we are being left behind others who are more advanced in post industrial transition. France, Germany and the United states are certainly strides ahead of us in this.

It is sad, although not surprising that once again England is being left behind. More perhaps due to the Countries indifference than anything else?

Any views out there more than welcome.

The Tories nationally are now proposing a ‘Grand Committee for England' in response to the above question. Well, does that address the inequalities within the United Kingdom for England? That's another question and Nick Robinson's blog contains some interesting commentary and views, link follows-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/10/question_of_sco.html

I understood New Labour's Harriet Harmen to say in a recent interview in response to the Tory proposal; it is not right to break up the United Kingdom. But hasn't it already been broken up by the Blair/Brown/Prescott trio's devolution of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland? That just left England to be broken up in the next and final stage of Euro Regional integration.

England is still a Country, a Nation and the only question for me is, "will our People rise up to defend her?"

On the ‘Brighouse Question' will local Tories accept an extrapolation of the same national proposal and agree to setting up a Committee for the Greater Brighouse Area? (Same sauce for goose and gander). All we have at present is a proposal for a toothless body for the entire lower valley. 'Typical' & 'Fudge' are the two words which spring to my mind, in response to the Tories solutions to both ‘West Lothian' and ‘Brighouse' questions.

By the way. extra and more expensive tiers of Government, either locally or nationally form no part of the English Democrats solutions to New Labour's Euro mess or Tory fudges. Want to know more? Send me an email.

Inexorably we are moving towards a single European State. Many are fearful of this. Most, according to opinion polls do not want to see English or British sovereignty lost. Some are vociferously opposed to the process of Euro integration. One such voice (The UK Column) appears to accuse the Conservatives and all their senior figures as complicit in the formation of a European Super State. Link:- www.devonportcolumn.org.uk

The clock is certainly ticking on the ratification process of the ‘Treaty' agreed by Gordon Brown last week.

There should be a referendum on this. Irrespective of whether this is a constitution veiled as a treaty or not. The People have a right to express their view on this single subject, even at this late stage. It should not be woven into any other national issue by Party manifestos or policies. This issue should not be clouded by solutions to the NHS, crime, inequalities in society or anything else. Simply, the ‘Treaty' Yes or No.

The following link, whilst partisan, makes interesting reading for all. Link:- http://www.eutruth.org.uk/

I would welcome comments or links to other sites to balance the argument.

With the promises and spin of the Party conference season hitting the headlines. A flurry of leaflets from Labour and canvass letters from the Tories. I'm sure there were some who thought we going to have an autumn General Election.

I was given the following by a local Elector who had prepared this to ask any canvassers who knock on his door.

Quote. To all prospective Members of Parliament

Having reached my sixth decade, and having witnessed over this period the slow strangulation of what now passes for democracy in the UK, I have decided that some common sense and guidance is required for any prospective Member of Parliament. I have therefore laid out the details below which if adopted, as a Party Manifesto would undoubtedly lead to a substantial majority for the Party adopting the obvious.

1. The abolition of inheritance tax

2. The reinstatement of tax credits on advance corporation tax for pension funds

3. The abolition of the Human rights Act

4. The abolition of stamp duty on house sales.

5. MP's and civil servants pensions to reflect the pensions in private industry

6. MP's salaries to be pegged to inflation with fixed expenses only

7. All council tax rises to be pegged to inflation only

8. Council's to be allowed to provide local, practical and limited services only

9. Flat rate income tax to be introduced

10. The House of Lord's to be the final arbiter for all white papers

11. Immigration to be strictly controlled and used for the purposes of skills shortages

12. Laws proposed by the EU only to be implemented where obviously beneficial to Great Britain.

Any politician would tell you that the above measures are completely unaffordable; my reply would be that if politicians were truly accountable for their budgets then the above could easily be absorbed by efficiencies across the board. Unquote.

I told the Elector, I could agree entirely with the spirit of everything on his list and with most of the points precisely. I added that English Democrat plans for the House of Lords was that it become a fully elected all UK Upper House, the Commons becoming England's National Parliament. Also, that our relationship with the EU would be subject anyway to a referendum on the nature of our future membership. Neither caused the Elector any concerns. In many cases I would be happy to support more radical movements along the themes this Elector has signposted!