Posted by PM on Sat, 07 May 2011 08:49 | #

The treatment of the SNP tells us a lot about the true nature of our elites. All the main parties will bang the drum for Britain, (think of Gordon Brown’s ‘British jobs for British workers’ or the proposed British Day) yet if they were really serious about this they would attack the Union-wrecking SNP as hard as they attack the BNP. Yet their continued success is met with a lack of hostility bordering on indifference by the mainstream political parties and their mouthpieces in the national media. When Michael Portillo said on Newsnight last night that there was a 50-50 chance of an independent Scotland in the next five years, it was with the calm, measured tones of a football pundit predicting the winner of the Premiership. You would have thought that the possible demise of our nation—a land that has carved out an empire and fought world wars together over its three hundred year history (as well as giving rise to their much-trumpeted British values and British democracy) would be a cause for anguish and soul-searching amongst the British elites, but apparantly not.

Can you imagine how different the picture would look if the Scottish Nationalists were ethno-nationalist, and were promising to stop immigration and promote white-Scottish culture if they achieved independence? It seems that we can have any country we want, as long as it’s black. That really is the only thing that matters to those that matter. It’s just a shame that the Scots are not savvy enough to realise that anything our elites would allow them to have is not worth having.

Perhaps talk of Scottish independence could jolt the English into asking themselves who they are? I suspect this would be a bigger worry to the establishment than Scottish (EU-governed) independence itself.

Let’s hope that Nick Griffin has the sense and the decency to stand down soon.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 May 2011 10:10 | #

I like posts like this one which deal straightforwardly with politics, and are informative. Thanks. Some issues I’m wondering about, as I’ve been extremely busy these past two days and have heard or read nothing about Thursday’s election:

1) What is a “First Minister of Scotland”?

2) Why does “the future of the Union, of all the Westminster parties, and of political nationalism in England now all rest with a few million Scottish votes”?

3) If the Scots vote for independence, will they actually gain sovereign nationhood, and how long until that became a reality?

4) Wouldn’t it be better for the Tories and English nationalism, and a disaster for Labour, if Scotland left the UK? I thought the Scots were mostly leftist, and voted either Labour or SNP (which is mainly leftist).

5) Why are the Scots so leftist?

6) If Scotland gained independence, would it be full independence? Would they issue their own currency, start their own military, and have their own immigration policy?

7) Would independence keep Scotland whiter than existing trends?

8) How likely that Scottish independence would lead to sovereignty for Wales and Ulster? Would any parts of England push for secession?

9) Is the 69% NO to AV a good thing (I thought so)?

10) Did the BNP do worse than expected?

11) How does ethnonationalism in England benefit from continued Union with Scotland?

12) Without Scotland, would the remaining UK become more Tory?

Posted by PM on Sat, 07 May 2011 11:59 | #

12) Without Scotland, would the remaining UK become more Tory?

Well, this one’s a no-brainer. Scotland is vastly over-represented in the British parliament. I think they have something liike sixty seats out of about 650. Given that Tory and Labour are fairly closely matched in terms of seats nationally, the expectation is that without Scotland the remaining nation would have a constant Tory majority. If Wales were to go this majority would be even higher.

Having said that we would be in uncharted territory, so it is very possible that a completely new political paradigm would emerge in England. For a start the whole political vocabulary I mentioned above such as ‘British values’ would be defunct. What would it be replaced with? Would English people just accept a cut-and-paste job in which the word ‘British’ was replaced with ‘English’? For this reason, some of your questions will be very hard for anyone to answer comprehensively. For example, your question 7 about whether an independent Scotland would be kept whiter. The variables on this seem to me to be mind-blowing. The ovious answer is no—the SNP and the Scottish left generally are certainly left-wing enough to import lots of non-whites for moral reasons. But would their undoubted economic incompetence lead to those immigrants all trying to get into England, or would their undoubted economic incompetence mean their generous benefits would attract ethnics to move from England? On top of that throw in the fact that we would presumably both be EU members, meaning that there would be free movement of people across the border for EU citizens, as well as a great deal of scope for illegal immigration (in either direction), and on top of that there would also be a possibilty of new political parties emerging in Scotland too. What need for the SNP after independence? Would there be room for a new ethno-nationalist Scottish party? Or even seperatism for the Highlands and Islands? Is it outside the bounds of possibility that there could even be a resurgent BRITISH nationalism on both sides of the border? That would really be something…

I doubt it will ever happen, but there would certainly be no Czech-Slovak style ‘velvet divorce’ if it did. We have too much shared history, people, institutions etc.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 May 2011 12:05 | #

Today’s Telegraph comment section 10.20 am (‘ish) 7 May 2011.  a rogerhicks responds to Telegraph article

The United Kingdom is worth fighting for

“British athletes competing in the London Olympics will be cheered on by their fellow citizens wherever they come from.”

Not by me they won’t. They might just as well be competing under the flag of the United Nations as far as I’m concerned.

Our politicians have betrayed and destroyed their own NATION (its natural ethnic foundations, through mass immigration) yet still want us to identity with it.

Britain has revealed itself for the proprietary and mercenary STATE it is (and always has been), that merely poses as a NATION, in order to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege, “talent” and, paradoxically, because they serve as useful clients to lawyer politicians, “minorities” and the “disadvantaged”.

The Telegraph and other “national” institutions are desperately, self-interestedly and quite vainly, trying to hold together a “nation” that does not exist, except as a self-delusion.

The sooner we recognise this and develop an understanding of it, the sooner we can begin to deal with the existential problems now threatening us.

A few minutes later rogerhicks follows up with another comment….

rogerhicks24 minutes ago

“Britishness is not so much a nationality as a framework that yokes us together through shared institutions, such as the monarchy, the Armed Forces and even the NHS.”

But in whose interests and to what end?

Undeniably, in the interests to those who manage to exchange citizenship of a 3rd World country for 1st world British citizenship.

The end, as it looks at the moment, will be the globalisation of
Britain’s population and realisation of the liberal-fascist/statist Left’s ideological goal of a post-racial, post-European society

I have been expressing exactly the same sentiments for sometime now, most recently surrounding the recent royal wedding.

The British people are traumatised and confused between nationalism and flag waving patriotism. This is born out as rogerhicks says, by the spectacle of multi racial ‘British’ Olympic athletes being flag waved on in support of ‘team Great Britain’.

Again, we see week in week out the spectacle of millions of working class British males cheering and idolising British soccer industry’s 25% non white players.

British nationalism cannot compete with this onslaught by the media gurus -as election results amply demonstrate.

With regard to the BNP - imo they are a dead duck, the electorate (astonishingly or no) reject them.  I cannot see them rising from the ashes.  Britain is imploding and rapidly assuming the image of a third world country, even if, in a final act of desperation the British people turn to the BNP (nationalism) then it will be already too late.  See this…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384422/Special-investigation-Inside-migrant-maternity-ward-NHS-struggling-cope.html

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 May 2011 12:13 | #

Apology!  forgot link to one above - The United Kingdom is Worth fighting for

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8499132/The-United-Kingdom-isworth-fighting-for.html

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 May 2011 14:22 | #

Scottish MP’s at Westminster during the reign of one Tony Blair dominated Blair’s cabinet.  They, (Scottish MP’s) were IMO, hand picked willing hirelings to ram diversity down the sassenachs throats and destroy the English economically. 

I suppose this what is called getting your own back, is Scotland to be rewarded with independence for favours rendered?

At that time, I couldn’t figure out why government spokesmen on television delivered their poisonous messages in a Scottish accent.  Much later, I also wondered why the SNP got a free pass from the media.  Belatedly, I got the message, Scots were historic victims of English oppression. Ah! so that was it.

When Scotsman Blair departed, guess who and what became his successor, no other than Scotsman Gordon Brown, who went on to spend most of his time trying to fathom what it meant to be British?

On a personal note, I have good reason to hold Scots in high regard.

PS I found this on my travels.  English nationalism - Identity crisis.  October 1998

Since New Labour has sponsored the process of constitutional reform that has raised these awkward questions—and since Tony Blair’s cabinet is top-heavy with Scots…

The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/167066

Posted by Philosopher King on Sat, 07 May 2011 19:07 | #

Why did the BNP take a stance against Instant runoff voting on the Alternative Vote referendum? It says on Wikipedia they were against it due to their desire for a PR system, but wouldn’t an instant runoff voting system be more beneficial to them than the plurality system currently in place? Wouldn’t it eliminate strategic voting (lesser of two evils), and increase the likelihood of making the transition to PR?

Oh… I forgot this is the BNP we’re talking about here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 May 2011 20:13 | #

I think the particular system that was proposed heavily favoured the centre.  That’s the problem.

http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2011/04/treated-like-dogs_19.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 May 2011 20:20 | #

1) What is a “First Minister of Scotland”?

Scotland and Wales have their own elected assemblies responsible for some, but not all, aspects of government.  The “First Minister” is the political leader of the country, so named so as not to be confused with the Prime Minister of the government at Westminster.

2) Why does “the future of the Union, of all the Westminster parties, and of political nationalism in England now all rest with a few million Scottish votes”?

The Scottish National Party is the party of Scottish independence - a political condition supported by about one third of Scots and 99% of the English.  Now that the SNP has won a majority in the Scottish Parliament it can bring forward a bill for a Scottish referendum on leaving the Union.  If the referendum is won, that would render “British” nationalism obsolete.

3) If the Scots vote for independence, will they actually gain sovereign nationhood, and how long until that became a reality?

Yes.  They will return to the status of a sovereign nation they enjoyed prior to the Act of Union.

4) Wouldn’t it be better for the Tories and English nationalism, and a disaster for Labour, if Scotland left the UK? I thought the Scots were mostly leftist, and voted either Labour or SNP (which is mainly leftist).

All correct.

5) Why are the Scots so leftist?

I couldn’t possibly answer that without offending my Scottish friends.

6) If Scotland gained independence, would it be full independence? Would they issue their own currency, start their own military, and have their own immigration policy?

It would be independence within the EU.  They would join the Euro, but in all other respects would maintain the full powers of national autonomy afforded under European Union (which are precious little).

7) Would independence keep Scotland whiter than existing trends?

Not in the longer term.  It is likely that only the presence of Scottish ministers within the New Labour government that the enrichment south of the border. 

8) How likely that Scottish independence would lead to sovereignty for Wales and Ulster? Would any parts of England push for secession?

Today, Wales has no prospect of becoming independent, though an independent Scotland would certainly strengthen the calls, and though a permanent Tory majority in England would render the voting in of a permanent Labour majority in Wales a vain psephological act and probably increase the calls for independence quite considerably.

I would not want to speculate on the future of Northern Ireland.  I don’t think “history” had come to an end there yet.

9) Is the 69% NO to AV a good thing (I thought so)?

For us, I believe so.  The nett effect of the transferable vote system is that it would reward mainstream voters with additional voting power, while disadvantaging radical-minded voters who are less likely to endorse a mainstream party with their second/third choices on the ballot paper.

10) Did the BNP do worse than expected?

No.  We are now inured to humiliation.

11) How does ethno-nationalism in England benefit from continued Union with Scotland?

Identity in England was submerged into Britishness until just a few years ago, when the Labour government granted Scotland and Wales their own assemblies.  The English are recovering their sense of self, but it is a long and confusing process, not least because the idea of “Britain” contains all the cultural and historical markers of identity.  Further, while Britain still exists nationally and governmentally, being an English nationalist party is reducing and partial.  Nationalists seem to desire to govern the whole nation.

12) Without Scotland, would the remaining UK become more Tory?

Yes, strongly so.  The Tories hold a permanent majority in England.  Labour holds a permanent majority in Wales.

Posted by no on Sun, 08 May 2011 02:00 | #

Michael Portillo is half Spanish half Scottish and a big supporter of the EU project so his please at whats happening is hardly surprising.

The pro-EU establishment are using divide and conquer to finish off Britain.

Guessed, you can complain about the BNP’s performance but the main problem is they don’t field enough candidiates and since they are so few of them its easy for the establishment to run campaigns designed purely at unseating the BNP.

In my area there was only two candidiates and both pro-EU, so I didn’t vote, I would have voted for any anti EU party.

Posted by Lew on Sun, 08 May 2011 02:19 | #

Well, I’m an American and don’t know anything about British politics. However, the thought of those foul immigrants walking up and down the same land that gave the world Shakespeare, Newton and Byron literally makes me ill. I really hope the BNP or its equivalent is able to do something before it’s too late.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 May 2011 08:26 | #

GW,

Thanks for getting me at least a bit up to speed wrt British politics. Of course, I forgot to ask the really important question: do you think Scotland is likely to become a new, sovereign nation within this decade (or the foreseeable future beyond that)? And would that be an outcome you would wish for?

It seems to me an ironic situation. Scotland would leave as a much whiter nation, yet its voters are more leftist (and also globalist and multiculturalist? I don’t know if those tendencies all run together over there as in the US). The remaining Britain would be more conservative in its political orientation, but also now even less proportionally white. Indeed, how white in percentage terms would the new British federation of England, Wales and Ulster be? And do you really think Ulster would be able to remain British? It wouldn’t want to join up with an independent Scotland, would it? Ulstermen are much more conservative than the Scots, but aren’t they mostly of Scottish ancestry?

Final comment. I really can’t understand how the Scots came to be so leftist. Historically, their national character combined among other traits entrepreneurship with extreme parsimoniousness (rather like Jews, come to think of it). The Scots gave America many tough businessmen (eg Andrew Carnegie) and military men (eg, Andrew Jackson), among other immigrants of accomplishment. Very strange, and sad. Scotland was very beautiful, and very white, when I visited it in the early 90s. I wish it could remain so.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 May 2011 08:34 | #

PM,

Thanks also for your interesting comment.

The real issue for me would be whether a resurgent Tory majority New Britain could have a better chance of ending nonwhite immigration, but also of putting the screws to immigrant benefits, and generally making life tough, so that there could be some attrition among them - indeed, maybe encourage some of them to emigrate to Scotland! Wouldn’t that be fitting!

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 08 May 2011 09:03 | #

You need to wake up GW and stop dreaming that the BNP is a racial nationalist party.

It aint.

Read its constitution - the one that Griffin wrote and imposed on the party.

The BNP is not even ethno-nationalist.

Nor is is cultural nationalist.

It is CIVIC NATIONALIST.

The more you walk around in a dismal daydream pretending the BNP is going to come and save the cause of racial nationalism, the more pathetic you appear.

As for the SNP- they are also not nationalists, they are civic nationalists who define anyone who enters the country, is handed a passport as an instant Scot.

The breakdown of the union will not save scottish whites, it will merely allow the SNP to impose its own immigration policy, put economic development and tax income before indigenous rights and allow the SNP to pass laws to allow millions of new immigrants to pour in and replace the indigenous scots.

WAKE UP FOR FUCKS SAKE !

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 May 2011 22:41 | #

Ethnic Groups
White: 4,960,334 - 98.19%
Scottish: 4,459,071 - 88.09%
Other White British: 373,685 - 7.38%
Any other White background: 87,650 - 1.73%
White Irish: 49,428 - 0.98%
Mixed: 12,764 - 0.25%
South Asian: 55,007 - 1.09%
Pakistani: 31,793 - 0.63% (2008 estimates - 40,000 Pakistanis)
Indian: 15,037 - 0.30%
Bangladeshi: 1,981 - 0.04%
Other South Asian: 6,196 - 0.12%
Black: 8,025 - 0.16%
African: 5,118 - 0.10%
Caribbean: 1,778 - 0.04%
Other Black: 1,129 - 0.02%
Chinese: 16,310 - 0.32%

IMO it’s unlikely Scottish demographics will change. Clearly England is the jewel in the crown for foreign immigrants and Scotland will remain attractive to the English who are retiring or fleeing the diversity of their native land. If England was over 98% white, this site would not exist.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 02:55 | #

If England was over 98% white, this site would not exist.

Did Thomas Hobbes paint the Birth of Venus? Is that red figure on top of the website a relief of England or Europe? I think and hope that our host disagrees with this assessment. I hope our host’s concern for Europe isn’t feigned or strategic. 

I also pray that those concerned solely with their tiny ethnic shire consider the broader picture. I pray that those who refuse to be moved by the struggles of their brothers and cousins wander throughout life in the multi-racial disaster of a desert that is modern day Europe and her diaspora only to suffer the indignity of laying their eyes on the Promised Land-being denied entrance-before dying deaths befitting only the man so blinded to the fact that he is essentially European that only myopically bigoted can describe his condition aptly.

May the European people live gracefully, peacefully and perpetually until the death of our sun

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 03:00 | #

I really can’t understand how the Scots came to be so leftist. Historically, their national character combined among other traits entrepreneurship with extreme parsimoniousness (rather like Jews, come to think of it). The Scots gave America many tough businessmen (eg Andrew Carnegie) and military men (eg, Andrew Jackson), among other immigrants of accomplishment. Very strange, and sad. Scotland was very beautiful, and very white, when I visited it in the early 90s. I wish it could remain so.

I’m puzzled as well.

My mother’s pastor is a Scottish immigrant who was a very successful businessman in Scotland. He sold everything, immigrated here and took over the pastorship at her church. It is a non-denominational church that is essentially creedless and as disconnected as a church could be from historic, Protestant Orthodoxy whilst remaining nominally Christian. I’m constantly finding myself in the strange predicament, when visiting mum, of defending the Scottish people’s right to exist and defending their historic attachment to Calvinism and Presbyterianism.

The cherry on top is after receiving his visa and permits to stay, he then proceeded to adopt African children.

Weird.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 03:03 | #

You need to wake up GW and stop dreaming that the BNP is a racial nationalist party.

I pay little attention to the BNP stuff here but the way I’ve always read GW has been that he had/has severe reservations about Griffin and the party and doesn’t really have “faith” in their abilities.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 10 May 2011 05:42 | #

I’d like to say something about LJ Barnes and GW, that may be unwelcome, but is well meant. When I first read LJB’s posts I garnered a negative impression about his attitude and ability to think clearly. After awhile I simply skipped his posts and followed instead posts that insulted and sabotaged what he was saying. I stopped reading MR for awhile because of the hostile and confrontational attitude, ‘mea culpa’. Every now and again I popped in to read the articles and comments, and when I came to LJB comments, thought ‘this fucking character….’ and passed on. Once there was a lot of invective against Barnes, so I had to read his comments to find out what the fuss was about. I was surprised, because though I don’t necessarily agree with him, many times he was saying something extremely intelligent and perceptive, often the only one, and saying it to a chorus of rigged accusations and sabotage. A lot of good ideas were not built on, but flushed because of yob attitudes. The core of what he is saying, again although I’m not exactly sympatico, is well thought out, perceptive, and very useful if given it’s due, and built on..

GW also made me wonder what the fk’ was going on here. All over the map, up/down, in/out, etc. That and some of the characters he endorses,  and stands by. Then I realized that is his character - British - ‘good luck’ ‘fare thee well’ , ‘soldier on’.

I thought… if we had lab gear like that in ‘The Fly’,  if we could transfer GW’s ‘cheerio’ , ‘sociability + gravitas’, to Barnes, and some of Barnes cold, no-nonsense, antisocial perception to GW, we would have one or two very scary, scary political weapons.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 May 2011 10:02 | #

It’s amazing how a two time miscegenator who has abandon his first born son thinks that somehow he is at all credible on issues of race and morality. Now that’s chutzpah.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 10 May 2011 10:37 | #

To whom are you referring Desmond.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 13:59 | #

It’s amazing how a two time miscegenator who has abandon his first born son thinks that somehow he is at all credible on issues of race and morality. Now that’s chutzpah.

‘Two time’ like twice? Or, ‘two-bit’ like worthless?

Cause if you mean twice, you can change it to three-time miscegenator since my English wife is pregnant again Mr. Jones.

Although I’ve got no problem talking about my moral failings-and they are multitudinous, as I’m sure yours are-but I don’t consider my first wife one of them. I did not believe miscegenation was wrong in my youth. In fact, I kind of considered anti-racism an important part of my identity. I also believe giving the boy up for adoption was the best thing for him. I think it is funny that you think you are capable of stinging. You are far too socially maladroit to play the name calling game. You should just leave that shit to others.

Or maybe, you could tell us a little about your life and you will shine by contrast? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 10 May 2011 18:43 | #

Nice show Desmond, why not throw acid in his face? Why not kill his dog? Wouldn’t it be great to drive someone batshit crazy with pointless accusations at the very first opportunity available?
Myself, when I work with people first I try to demoralize as much as possible with stupid chatter, dumb questions and pointless accusations. Then I like to hang some totally meaningless moral inferiority complex on them….then I let them know I expect the both perfection and the impossible and if they don’t provide it they will be eternally morally inferior to myself - ‘he who judges and finds wanting’.
Have a nice day.

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 11 May 2011 19:39 | #

pot meet kettle. Sorry Desmond

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 May 2011 01:10 | #

Still no answers to my questions though.

The ad hom seems to be the specialty of the Angle-the triangulator-disrupter of European unity.

I’m sorry too. Sorry I ever took the red pill.

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 12 May 2011 02:01 | #

What matters is Desmond is one of ours. Our own are entitled to insult us, return the blows and finish with good will.

Posted by Mr Voight on Thu, 12 May 2011 02:16 | #

my English wife is pregnant again

Congratulations.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 May 2011 03:26 | #

Congratulations

Hot damn!

I was wondering if that would pass unremarked. I guess there is at least one reasonable person here!

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 May 2011 03:28 | #

What matters is Desmond is one of ours. Our own are entitled to insult us, return the blows and finish with good will.

I have no doubt in my mind that he is one of ours. The problem is he doesn’t think he is. The goodwill and good feeling I have toward Desmond is unrequited and non-reciprocal.

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 12 May 2011 04:03 | #

I forgot, congratulation!

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:00 | #

Congratulations from me also, and to the Geordie missus too.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 May 2011 05:24 | #

Congratulations from me also, and to the Geordie missus too.

Geordie roots… She’s really just a dirty Bristolian!

So cider I up on me Lurker. I’ll paypal you for a couple rounds and a cigar.