Thursday, October 22, 2009

Campaign for English Parliament (CEP) is deliberately misquoting SNP

Scilla Cullen
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Dear Mr Cullen,

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/legal-and-constitutional/-england-to-dance-to-scotland-s-tune-says-salmond-$1335371$479240.htm

Your headline says 'England to dance to Scotland's tune' says Salmond yet you must be aware that Mr Salmond said nothing of the sort.

The relevant part of his speech is here:

"Votes for the SNP will turn all these noes into yeses from the London government. A Scottish bloc of MPs will unblock Westminster."

"We shall use voting power to make London dance to a Scottish tune."

Full transcript:
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/salmond-scotland-has-what-it-takes/

London Government is a reference to Westminster which is the British parliament.

I look forward to an apology and a retraction on the epolitics site.

Adjusting politicians speeches to give an inaccurate account of what they said is simply not acceptable and is poor politics.

If you want to attack the Scottish National Party (I wonder why when logically the British state is the obstacle to international recognition for England!) then do so on the basis of what they actually say.

This kind of silly headline based on inaccurate remarks is no way to gain credibility for your campaign.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

20 comments:

tally said...

for scots nats london means England.wear it.

Anonymous said...

Since most of what London, ie the British government, does is govern England, obviously if London has to dance to Scotland's tune it perforce means that England will have to dance to Scotland's tune because England, not having its own parliament (unlike Scotland) has no means of expressing its own will.

Anonymous said...

You believe in Scotch "Independence?".

How can you support the SNP then? they are the biggest 'Unionists' of all, EUnionists, and are fully committed to 'full' EU membership, which is anything but "Independence", to be fair perhaps the word Independence has a different definition in Scotregion.

Still who cares, just so long as England is rid, you can have all your inept, far-left wing extremist communist Politicians back.

---------------------------------
in⋅de⋅pend⋅ence

–noun
1. Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent.
2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/independence

freescotlandnow said...

1) Tally, no it does not. London rule refers to British rule. As an English nationalist you should really know the difference.

2) Anon1 England has 80% of all the MP's at Westminster so you have a better chance of influencing Westminster than Scotland does. Leaving that aside, you are correct that England is not recognised as a political entity in its own right. However the reason for this is that historically England created the British Union to maximise its influence worldwide.

3) It's sad that you can't make your point without resorting to abuse. Yes I do believe in independence and freedom for ever country which is badly affected by British rule. Sadly the CEP and English Democrats appear to believe that attacking Scots is the equivalent of representing England. It's not. To me this particular comment sounds like a typical narrow minded xenophobic BritNat so you actually suit the state you are in! As you should know btw independent countries decide their future in respect of the EU. When we are independent then so will we.

Maria said...

I'm afraid the Parliament in London does mainly govern England - not just London. So, if that Parliament dances to a "Scottish tune" then so does England.

To say "London will dance to a Scottish tune" is a nonsense - unless Mr Salmond is talking about the London Assembly?

And he wasn't.

It's rather like saying "Edinburgh will dance to an English tune" regarding the Scots Parliament. Scots would then, quite rightly, be hurrying to point out the error.

freescotlandnow said...

Sorry, if it was the same thing then the CEP wouldn't have changed the quote for their press release would they.

You can't on the one hand demand an English parliament and at the same time pretend attacks on the British parliament are attacks on England!

Well you can, but it's absurd.

Maria said...

Oh, I agree - the speech marks were wrong, but the basic meaning wasn't.

But, having read some of your views here - how England alone created the UK to spread its worldwide influence, etc, I do think you have a very slight problem.

freescotlandnow said...

No, I am merely stating the reality as Jack Straw (former British foreign secretary) admitted during an interview with the BBC:

"Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

If England didn't 'call the shots to create the union' then what actually happened?

Maria said...

Yes, and Jack Straw at the same time described the English (alone it seems in the UK) as "having a propensity to violence". You agree with Mr Straw then?

Maria said...

You ask what happened at the time of union? Surely Scotland had bankrupted itself on a colonial experiment and thought that a union with England would be tremendous in helping it to fulfill its own aims?

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the English alone are to blame for everything - and neither are the Scots. That seems rather a bigoted approach to me.

Barry (The Elder) said...

The CEP may have misquoted Alex Salmond but they never changed his sex, of course I refer to the name Scilla, as in Scilla Black, yet Mr Middleton heads the reply letter Mr!!!

In regards to the reply to anon, it is correct to say that with 550MPs sitting for English constituencies, those MPs should swing parliament in England's favour but when did those MPs have a free vote without the interference of the 3 line whip? Three bills were voted into legislation that effect England only and on each occasion the bills were only carried (SNP apart) because MPs from outside England voted for these bills and because of devolution these bills had no effect on thier own countries, on each of these bills English MPs voted against them, the bills namely are Foundation Hospitals, Top-up Fees and the 3rd runway at Heathrow, please Mr Middleton don't hark on about Maggie Thatcher and the poll tax because this was pre-devolution.

As for Jack Straw's comments, well he would say that would'nt he, the man has nothing more than contempt for England
Barry (The Elder)

freescotlandnow said...

You ask what happened at the time of union? Surely Scotland had bankrupted itself on a colonial experiment and thought that a union with England would be tremendous in helping it to fulfill its own aims?

------

So fiction suits your purposes more than facts. Somehow that's not a shock!

I suggest you read a book on the true history of the union but given that there was 20 public petitions against the union and none in favour, there was riots in the street after the decision was taken and the MP's ran out the back door while at the same time a large English army was based on the border suggests there wasn't any enthusiasm from the Scots side. Also an English spy (Daniel De Foe) at the time estimated the Scots were 100/1 against.

Furthermore for the first FIFTY YEARS after the union trade in Scotland declined.

freescotlandnow said...

England was applying the equivalent of economic sanctions prior to the union by deciding that no Scot could own holdings in England.

There was an 'equivalent' paid to our MP's, this amount was due to Scotland taking on a share of England's huge national debt!

Yes, the Darien expedition had failed and people had lost money but that was not the reason for union in fact it encouraged Scots to seek to regain control of their monarch because the imported King of Scotland and England, William was felt to have undermined the trading post and failed to offer it proper support despite the Scots obtaining his consent. It was these negotiations (to attempt to have a say in the succession) which were eventually corrupted towards agreeing a union.

The equivalent monies were used to bribe certain corrupt MP's however it was obvious that a union would have been forced if they hadn't agreed to it anyway.

The fact the union was unpopular is also reflected by the subsequent armed rebellions against it!

In 1746 the British parliament suddenly decided that Wales and Berwick were conveniently now part of England.

Scotland was officially renamed as North Britain but luckily it didn't catch on. Similarly the new West Britain (Ireland) proved a tad unpopular as well.

No doubt Ireland, Wales and Cornwall were also overjoyed to join in a state named Britannia as well.

Aye, right!

freescotlandnow said...

Not one person has logically explained why the Campaign for an English Parliament was attacking the SNP and Alex Salmond for saying something that he didn't actually say!

In fact Mr Salmond is a supporter of your cause, one of the few to have came out and directly supported it.

"In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does."

- Alex Salmond

The SNP also deliberately avoids voting on England only bills. So in what way is the SNP your enemy and how do attacks on the SNP or Scotland move forward England's campaign for a devolved parliament?

Maria said...

I think you will find there are arguments that certain islands off the coast of Scotland are not legally Scots either -

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_north_sea_oil_owned_by_the_shetland_islands

and Wales was a principality of England before 1746.

And Cornwall was part of England centuries before.

I have also read that many people in England were initially against the Union. It was, as usual, a small elite in England and Scotland who carried on regardless.

Having said that, I desire independence for Scotland, the Shetlands, Cornwall, Wales, etc, more than anything in the world - if that is what the people living in those places desire.

And the same goes for England.

I'm totally on your side as far as that goes.

It's just that I don't go along with your view that England is to blame for most things.

My very best wishes to you and your ambition to achieve an independent Scotland.

We all deserve better than the current shambolic and corrupt "UK" form of government.

And there are many more voices raised loudly against it in Scotland than in England, where the media and politicians believe it is best to keep us all in the dark and perpetuate the misery.

Maria said...

Personally, I think the CEP headline was off - the speech marks were wrong. I have said that before. But I do think that it would advance the SNP's case further in Mr Salmond had used the word "England" - prompting interest here.

The Westminster Parliament mainly RULES England, post-devolution. London does not have a national parliament.

I don't want a devolved government for England, I want an independent England. But then I am not the CEP.

And I applaud the SNP which seeks to bring an end to the British State.

lithgae dave said...

The CEP have a habit of doing this sort of thing - misquoting, taking things out of context and on occasion telling complete lies about Scotland.

It is a pity because they make a good case for an English parliament. I don't see why the feel the need to keep bashing the Scots all the time.

Junius said...

If Mr Salmon (male) actually said that 'London' will dance to a Scottish tune - then Scilla (female) is technically right to call it the English Parliament.

Without a seperate and devolved parliament for England, the Westminister Parliament is the defacto 'English Parliament'.

If dancing to the tune of a scottish jig is what Mr Salmond (still male) - he must know and does know that that means the greatest number of people affected by his demands will be English.

IMO it is his absolute intention to irritate the English to such an extend that they will eventually demand a separation from Scotland.

Without it, I don't believe that you have any chance of convincing the majority of Scots to vote for independence - more power to the Holyrood assembly, Yes - but full independence - No.

And again, Joe, you complain about abuse, but you yourself resort to such intemperate language you would probably find youself in court if aimed at any other nationality other than the English.

This post appears to be a provactive attempt to irritate the English yet again - and I have a feeling that you problably (deep down buried under conscience) believe that Mel Gibson is an historian.

I think you should apologise to Ms Scilla Cullen for getting her gender incorrect, because if you can't get that right your credibility is somewhat tarnished - and then drop this nonsense for more worthwhile topics - like how you are going to fund your topheavy public sector wages bill after full independence.

And the best of luck with that one.

freescotlandnow said...

I actually would want England to have its rights respected (yes historically it drove the union but times do change) but attacking Scotland and the SNP won't get you anywhere.

The British Government is the problem for Scots, Welsh, English and Cornish. I suggest you guys check out this blog:

http://thecornishdemocrat.blogspot.com/2009/10/asymetric-devolution-but-who-wins.html

I have added the following comment:

Scotland, Wales, England and Cornwall are all historic countries although the British union obscures this fact.

Splitting England into regions is wrong but equally England must support Cornish rights to self determination if the Cornish choose to exercise it.

At the very least the UK should give Cornwall a Euro MP and ensure local Government respects Cornwall.

My personal opinion is that both Cornwall and England need to campaign for independence from Britain along with Scotland and Wales.

Mutual independence would suit us all, federalism just shares the same problems and it won't ultimately satisfy either Scotland or Wales.

Devolution is what Britain gives you when you genuinely threaten independence.

England is too big to comfortably share a union with any other countries, but slicing it into regions goes completely against its history. Time to ditch the union and free us all!

jimbob said...

Ah, the old Cornwall isn't part of England bollocks. It's a sentiment shared by very few people - the Welsh and Scottish love it though, wonder why. I'd love there to be a vote in Cornwall to prove the nutjob OAP's in Cornwall and Scottish/Welsh nationalists wrong - in case you haven't realised, lots of the people in Cornwall aren't "from" Cornwall - as per any county.