1

INTRODUCTION TO BRITISH
CIVILISATION
3VAAMCGB
Cours LCE et LEA Tronc commun 1er semestre 2014-15

Responsable du cours : M.I. DUCROCQ

Enseignants : T. ABDOU, M. BERTRAND, C. CROWLEY, M.I. DUCROCQ , L. DUBOIS,

D. FOLIARD, C. KOHLER, T. LABICA, S. PARAGEAU, C. PRUNIER
 2

CONTENTS 2014-2015

Course description
Course description

Bibliography and exams

Method

Documents
I. The Geography and the People: Past and Present

The Four-Nation State

The People: Class and Religion in the UK/ The North-South Divide

The capital city

II. Identity Issues and Britishness

Immigration and Multiculturalism

The debate about Britishness

III. Political institutions and parties

The Constitution and constitutional reform

The Electoral System and political parties

Trade Unions

IV. The UK in the world

From the Empire to the Commonwealth

The special relationship with the US

Europe
 3

U.E. : 3VAAMCGB
EC : Civilisation britannique.
Intitul court : Introduction la civilisation britannique

Responsable(s) : Myriam-Isabelle DUCROCQ.

Dure du cours : 1h30 hebdomadaire

Nombre de crdits (ECTS) : 3 Ects

T. ABDOU, M. BERTRAND, AC. CROWLEY,

L. DUBOIS, M.I. DUCROCQ, D. FOLIARD, C.
Enseignant(s) :
KOHLER, T. LABICA, S. PARAGEAU, C.
PRUNIER

Programme

Ce cours dintroduction la civilisation britannique vise permettre aux tudiants de mieux

comprendre les spcificits de la socit britannique contemporaine et son fonctionnement,
dans la tension entre traditions et adaptations aux enjeux du vingt et unime sicle. Dfini
comme une monarchie parlementaire et caractris par une histoire religieuse complexe,
mais aussi par une composante multiculturelle induite par le passage de lEmpire au
Commonwealth, le Royaume-Uni est confront la monte de nationalismes rgionaux ,
au point que lon peut parfois se demander ce qu tre britannique peut encore signifier.

Suivant une approche historique et thmatique, ce cours sarticulera autour de quatre axes
principaux :

Aspects gographiques et dmographiques :

- lorganisation du territoire et les ingalits Nord-Sud

- la composition de la population en termes ethniques, sociaux et religieux

Aspects identitaires :

- la question du multiculturalisme et de limmigration

 4

- la question de l unit du Royaume-Uni : rappels historiques et introduction la

notion de dvolution au Pays de Galles et en Ecosse ; spcificit de lIrlande du
Nord

Aspects politiques et institutionnels :

- introduction au paysage politique britannique et spcificit du systme du first-

past-the-post

- monarchie parlementaire et introduction la constitution

Relations internationales : la place du Royaume-Uni dans le monde

Bibliographie

Bibliographie obligatoire :

Sarah PICKARD, Civilisation britannique British Civilization, dition bilingue, Paris,

Pocket, 7e dition, 2012.

Bibliographie indicative :

John OAKLAND, British Civilization : An Introduction, London, Routledge, 6th edition,

2006.

Norman LOWE, Mastering Modern British History, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Fabrice BENSIMON, Frdrique LACHAUD, Stphane LEBECQ, Franois-Joseph

RUGGIU (dir.), Histoire des les Britanniques, Paris, PUF, coll. "Manuels Quadridge",
2007.

Modalits de contrle continu

Deux partiels: un mi-parcours et un partiel final portant sur des questions de cours, de
synthse, des questions de comprhension d'un texte et la rdaction d'une introduction un
commentaire de civilisation.

Examen terminal

Examen crit (dure : 1h30) : questions de cours + questions sur un document + introduction
complte dun commentaire portant sur ce document.

Langue(s) du cours : anglais

Cours ouvert aux tudiants dchanges internationaux : oui

Prrequis : non.
 5

USEFUL WEBSITES

Useful databases on British history and culture

http://britannia.com/history/

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Britain.html

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org

British media (free of charge)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

http://www.economist.com

http://www.independent.co.uk/

On British politics
http://www.epolitix.com
http://www.ukpolitics.org.uk
http://www.politicallinks.co.uk
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gbpolitics.htm

Institutions
http://www.parliament.co.uk/hophome.htm Site officiel du Parlement
http://www.exploreparliament.uk Parlement (encyclopdie)
http://www.number-10.gov.uk Site officiel du Premier Ministre et du gouvernement

Political Parties
http://www.labour.org.uk
http://www.conservative-party.org.uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk
http://www.snp.org
http://www.plaidcymru.org
Site officiel du parti travailliste
Site officiel du parti conservateur
Site officiel des libraux-dmocrates
Site officiel du parti national cossais SNP
Site officiel du parti national gallois Plaid Cymru
 6

METHODOLOGY

Introducing a document

You should make sure that your introduction provides the following information:

The nature of the document

- texts: they may be political, juridical, religious, literary,
- images: statues, monuments, paintings, objects, photographs,
- diagram [schma], chart,
The titles of works are italicized in the paratext. (e.g. The Wealth of Nations) In your
papers, they should be underlined. (e.g. The Wealth of Nations) Remember that in
English, all the lexical words in titles begin with capital letters.

The author of the document

- the person, or the institution, who produced the document
- the person whose words or thoughts are reported
Sometimes the authors name is not given in the paratext. In that case, you should try
to guess who he is by observing the document. If it is impossible to know, do not
mention it.
When giving biographical details, choose only those which are relevant to the text.
Give information which will help understand what he is discussing and how he is
discussing it. For instance, the social category he belongs to may influence his vision.

The date of the document

- the date of the event(s) evoked by the document
- the date when the document was created
- the date when the document was published

The historical context of the document

You need to explain the historical interest of the text by drawing on its context. Avoid
giving a general overview of a whole period. Only discuss what is directly relevant for
the text.

The theme(s) of the document:

You need to summarize the main theme(s) of the document, that is, the topic(s) it
tackles and the information it provides.

The agenda:
What is the authors goal? Is he biased or objective? Is he trying to convince the
reader of something?

The tone:
If there is something specific about the tonefor example, if it is ironic, humorous,
playful, etc you need to mention it in the introduction as well.
 7

The structure of the document:

How many parts are there? What do they consist of?

Do not improvise! Write out your introduction on a draft, so that you can avoid
repeating things or using incorrect or boring syntax.
The information you need to introduce a document is usually to be found around the
document itself, in what is known as the paratext. (e.g. Adam Smith, The Wealth of
Nations, 1776) You need to read and use the paratext carefully and remember that the
information it provides is not sufficient to introduce the document properly.

Noubliez pas dindiquer en dernier lieu votre problmatique = votre dmarche

pour analyser le texte, et surtout un plan de commentaire de texte qui vous
permettrait de rpondre cette problmatique

See Danile Frison, et. al., Expansion of the Anglo-

American World 1688-1900, (Historical Documents and
Commentaries), Ellipses, 1995, pp.15-17.

Analyzing a document finding an outline

The three goals of the commentary should be:

to underline the main ideas as well as the internal logic of it (what is

being said)

to pay attention to how the meaning is conveyed (organisation, rhetoric,

tone etc.) (how it is said)

to highlight the key facts/elements thanks to what you know about the
historical context. (in which context)

Under no circumstance should your commentary be a running commentary. You may

choose one of the following approaches:

1. If the document is a well-structured text, you may want to adopt the same
organisation without of course repeating or paraphrasing what is already said in
the text. The point of the commentary will be to bring extra information to
elements mentioned in the document. You will also focus on the way facts or ideas
are presented, in what order or what the author has decided to mention/show or
not.
 8

2. If you find there are repetitions or recurring ideas in the text, or if the document is
not a text at all (such as a map or an image), you may prefer a synthetic approach.
It will be up to you to organise the key ideas or themes so as to underline the
message conveyed by the document.

All along, remember you may quote from the document, but you are not supposed to
copy lengthy passages from it.

When you quote from the text, make sure you add a personal comment to the quote so
that its not mere copying (avoid paraphrase and mere copying)

Conclusion:

It is the conclusion that leaves the reader with an evaluation of the document. It has to
answer the problematic raised in the introduction by giving the strong lines of
arguments which you developed in the body of the commentary. [Do not repeat your
commentary, just underline the gist of your arguments!!!].
The second step is to branch out: you need to broaden the issues of the document and
find a need debate related to the one tackled in the text under study or you can raise
further questions related to the main issue of the document.

RECAP
To introduce a document and its analysis, you should :
Present the nature of the document and its source
Expose the main topic and the issue dealt with
Provide some elements of context
Give an outline of your analysis

Identifying Sources
ANNALS: year-by-year accounts of historical events. The practice of writing annals was widespread in
medieval times. See CHRONICLE.

ANTHOLOGY: a collection of writings by different authors.

ARTICLE: a short non-fiction prose composition about a single topic.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY: a personal account of ones own life. The emphasis is on introspection and the
development of personality. See MEMOIRS.

BIOGRAPHY: the recording of someones life, concentrating on his character, experiences and
environment.

CHRONICLE: a form of historical writing which prevailed in medieval times and during the Renaissance.
It related national or foreign events in verse or prose. Chronicles were more comprehensive than annals.
 9

DIARY: a journal in which personal and intimate details are recorded day by day. See JOURNAL.

ESSAY: a composition presenting a point of view or discussing a given subject. FORMAL ESSAYS are
impersonal, serious, and written to inform. INFORMAL or FAMILIAR ESSAYS are conversational in tone,
light, humorous, often concerned with more trivial subjects, and written to entertain.

JOURNAL: a day by day relation of events and personal reactions to them. Like a diary, it is
autobiographical, but usually less intimate.

MEMOIRS: an autobiographical kind of writing, in which the emphasis is less on intimate details than on
the important events witnessed by the narratoroften a prominent person.

PAMPHLET: a short essay, usually unbound, on a given subject. It is often polemical.

TESTIMONY

See F. Grellet, A Handbook of Literary Terms, Paris: Hachette, 1996.

 10

THE GEOGRAPHY AND THE PEOPLE:

PAST AND PRESENT

The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

http://www.uktravelcentre.com
11
 12

Characteristics of the four nations

Countries

Characteris Northern
Scotland England Wales
tics Ireland (Ulster)

Number of
5 million 49 million 3 million 1,6 million
inhabitants

Pound
Currency Pound Sterling Pound Sterling Pound Sterling
Sterling

Capital Edinburgh London Cardiff Belfast

The Irish or
The People The Scots The English The Welsh
Ulster Men

English,
English and English and Irish
Language Scots and Scots English
Welsh Gaelic
Gaelic

Symbol

The Shamrock
The Thistle The Red Rose The Leek and
and the Harp
the Daffodil
Colour
blue white red green

St. George St. David St. Patrick

Patron St. Andrew
Saint (November 30th) (April 23rd) (March 1st) (March 17th)
 13

Protestant,
Roman Protestant and Ro
Main Protestant and Ro Protestant and Ro
Catholic, man Catholic
Religions man Catholic man Catholic
Muslim and Hi
ndu

http://www.uk.filo.pl/symbols_of_four_nations.htm

http://www.vijayforvictory.com/general/evolution-of-union-jack-
flag/288/
 14

http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/John-Bull/

History in brief

The Economist Nov 29, 2005

Towards the end of the first millennium, the patchwork of kingdoms ruling the British
Isles coalesced into larger, more powerful realms. England, the largest, fell to
Norman invaders from northern France in 1066. They and their successors, the
Angevin kings (1154-1485), established a powerful monarchy that extended royal
influence into Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

The failures of King John in the early 13th century led the barons of England to
revolt. In 1215 the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta, which placed checks
on the absolute power of the monarch. A civil war followed, but when John's son,
Henry III, assumed the throne the document was reissued. The Magna Carta is
widely considered to be the forerunner of constitutional law.

The Wars of the Roses (1455-1485) ended with the accession of a new royal
dynasty, the Tudors. Henry VIII (1509-47) politically unified England and Wales (in
1536) and renounced Papal authority. Religion remained a divisive issue over the
next 130 years, as English Protestantism defined itself. Scotland's parliament
adopted Presbyterianism as the state religion in 1560.

The accession of the Stuart king James I in 1603 united the thrones of England and
Scotland. But conflict between an increasingly headstrong Parliament and the
Crown led to civil war (1642-51) and the monarchy's temporary abolition. The
 15

monarch's power was curtailed for good (to Parliament's great gain) in the Glorious
Revolution of 1688-89. England and Scotland politically unified in the Act of Union
of 1707.

The 17th and 18th centuries saw Britain's explorers and traders carve out a
tremendous overseas empire. Wars augmented it, but drained coffers. Attempts to
make colonial government pay for itself led to the Revolutionary War (1775-83) in
which Britain lost its American colonies. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland officially came into existence in 1800 when the latter's parliament was
abolished.

Quickening industrialisation and a population explosion transformed Britain into the

world's strongest economic power until the late 19th century. Under Victoria (1837-
1901) a vigorous policy of imperialism forged a great overseas empire, with India as
its centerpiece. At home, reformers brought about changes including labour laws,
freer trade and expanded voting rights, though only two-thirds of adult males could
vote in 1914.

The first and second world wars devastated Britain's population and economy.
(Between the wars, Ireland won its independence, in 1922, though Britain retained
the six counties that are now Northern Ireland). American aid helped Britain recover
in the late 1940s, and the Labour government introduced a comprehensive welfare
state and nationalised various industries in the late 1940s and 50s. But with its
remaining colonies winning independence, Britain's days as a major world power
were over, as the humiliating Suez Crisis of 1956 showed.

After suffering a decade and a half of economic problems, Britain recovered under
the Conservative governments of 1979-97. Recent domestic politics have since
been marked by the devolution of power to Britain's regions, though the long-term
fate of Northern Ireland is undecided. Britain joined the European Community (now
the EU) in 1973, but its attitude towards European integration has remained
sceptical.

Union with England Act 1707

Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and
ENGLAND
The Estates of Parliament Considering that Articles of Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and
England were agreed on the twenty second of July One thousand seven hundred and six years
by the Commissioners nominated on behalf of this Kingdom under Her Majesties Great Seal of
 16

Scotland bearing date the twenty seventh of February last past in pursuance of the fourth Act
of the third Session of this Parliament and the Commissioners nominated on behalf of the
Kingdom of England under Her Majesties Great Seal of England bearing date at Westminster
the tenth day of April last past in pursuance of an Act of Parliament made in England the third
year of Her Majesties Reign to treat of and concerning an Union of the said Kingdoms Which
Articles were in all humility presented to Her Majesty upon the twenty third of the said Month
of July and were Recommended to this Parliament by Her Majesties Royal Letter of the date the
thirty one day of July One thousand seven hundred and six And that the said Estates of
Parliament have agreed to and approven of the saids Articles of Union with some Additions
and Explanations as is contained in the Articles hereafter insert And sicklyke Her Majesty with
advice and consent of the Estates of Parliament Resolving to Establish the Protestant Religion
and Presbyterian Church Government within this Kingdom has past in this Session of
Parliament an Act entituled Act for secureing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian
Church Government which by the Tenor thereof is appointed to be insert in any Act ratifying
the Treaty and expressly declared to be a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of the said
Treaty or Union in all time coming Therefore Her Majesty with advice and consent of the
Estates of Parliament in fortification of the Approbation of the Articles as abovementioned And
for their further and better Establishment of the same upon full and mature deliberation upon
the forsaids Articles of Union and Act of Parliament Doth Ratifie Approve and Confirm the
same with the Additions and Explanations contained in the saids Articles in manner and under
the provision aftermentioned whereof the Tenor follows

Union with Ireland Act 1800

1800 CHAPTER 67 39 and 40 Geo 3
An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. [2nd July 1800]
Preamble.
Whereas in pursuance of his Majestys most gracious recommendation to the two
Houses of Parliament in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, to consider of such
measures as might best tend to strengthen and consolidate the connection between the
two kingdoms, the two Houses of the Parliament of Great Britain and the two Houses of
the Parliament of Ireland have severally agreed and resolved, that, in order to promote
and secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and to consolidate the
strength, power and resources of the British Empire, it will be adviseable to concur
in such measures as may best tend to unite the two kingdoms of Great Britain and
Ireland into one kingdom, in such manner, and on such terms and conditions, as may
be established by the Acts of the respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland:

The Parliaments of England and Ireland have agreed upon the articles following:
 17

And whereas, in furtherance of the said resolution, both Houses of the said two
Parliaments respectively have likewise agreed upon certain Articles for effectuating
and establishing the said purposes, in the tenor following: 2 Union with Ireland Act
1800 (c. 67)

ARTICLE FIRST
That Great Britain and Ireland shall upon Jan. 1, 1801, be united into one kingdom;
and that the titles appertaining to the crown, &c. shall be such as his Majesty shall be
pleased to appoint.
That it be the First Article of the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland,
that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January
which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for
ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial
crown
of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags
and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the
Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint.
ARTICLE SECOND
That the succession to the crown shall continue limited and settled as at present.
That it be the Second Article of Union, that the succession to the imperial crown of
the said United Kingdom, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, shall continue
limited and settled in the same manner as the succession to the imperial crown of the
said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland now stands limited and settled, according to
the existing laws and to the terms of union between England and Scotland.
ARTICLE THIRD
That the United Kingdom be represented in one Parliament.
That it be the Third Article of Union, that the said United Kingdom be represented in
one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland.
ARTICLE FOURTH
That such Act as shall be passed in Ireland to regulate the mode of summoning and
returning the lords and commoners to serve in the united Parliament of the United
Kingdom, shall be considered as part of the treaty of union.
...
That such Act as shall be passed in the Parliament of Ireland previous to the union,
to regulate the mode by which the lords spiritual and tbemporal and the commons, to
serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the part of Ireland, shall be
summoned and returned to the said Parliament, shall be considered as forming part of
the treaty of union, and shall be incorporated in the Acts of the respective Parliaments
by which the said union shall be ratified and established: . . .
 18

History lessons we should learn

Celebrating our national identity is pointless if we don't know how the past made us

Tristram Hunt The Observer Sunday January 15 2006

The Chancellor's call at yesterday's Fabian Society conference for a celebration of Britishness
should be cautiously welcomed by patriotic progressives. In an impassioned speech, he made
the case for recapturing the union flag as a 'British symbol of unity, tolerance and inclusion'. But
despite his best intentions, it is not supranational identities which Britons want to cling to, rather,
the more particular identities of Wales, Scotland and, increasingly, England.
As a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer seeking to be Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon
Brown has been making similar pronouncements since the mid-1990s. His empathy for and
knowledge of the past is widely admired. Yet reservations creep in when the tub-thumping
rhetoric drowns out historical analysis. For the Brownite virtues of Britishness - tolerance, fair
play, liberty under law, an outward-looking mentality - are neither unique to these isles nor have
they always been on display across Britain's long history. All too frequently, the Chancellor slips
into a Whiggish narrative of national heroism which pays little attention to the less-becoming
elements of our past. Many were dismayed when he chose a recent trip to Africa to celebrate
the virtues of empire and demand we stop apologising for it. As academic Paul Gilroy rightly
asks: 'When did we start apologising?'

Behind much of Brown's thinking is the canonical work Britons by Princeton historian Linda
Colley. During the 18th century, she suggests, the modern British state was forged under the
influence of empire, Protestantism and warfare. Seen in this light, Great Britain cannot be
regarded as an ancient nation whose origins are lost in the mists of time. Instead, it should be
regarded as the specific construct of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. As such,
it is a nation whose history extends not much further than the quintessentially modern national
creation, the United States of America.

Problematically for prospective leaders of the UK, the very forces which first crafted Great
Britain in the 1700s are now in disarray. The ambition for empire is gone; Protestantism in its
Anglican and nonconformist varieties is a shadow of its previous magnificence; and while the
Prime Minister has done all he can to keep our martial spirit up, we are no longer involved in the
kind of totalising military mobilisations of which the Second World War was the last.

The ties which bound Englishman to Scotsman to Welshman; the culture which celebrated
David Livingstone, Florence Nightingale or Lloyd George as unifyingly British heroes has gone.
So, according to Mr Brown, we need a new calendar of rituals and events to reunite the British
ethos. Hence his call to convert Remembrance Day into British Day.

But at least since the early Seventies, what ever greater numbers have wanted to identify with is
their national identity. Celtic nationalism emerged as a major political and cultural force during
the Callaghan years and, through the demand for devolution, brought that government down. In
the Nineties, English nationalism witnessed a wholly unexpected grassroots revival. On the left,
the likes of Billy Bragg and Tony Benn championed the radical heritage of the English common
man while on the right, Roger Scruton, Peter Hitchens and a small army of football fans
rediscovered the symbolic meaning of St George.

Only last week, the government seemed to be encouraging such emotional patriotism. By
launching the English Icons campaign, a website devoted to public expressions of pride in
uniquely English products, Culture Minister David Lammy hoped to draw the sting of xenophobic
 19

nationalism and unashamedly celebrate the specific virtues of England. And if it is managed
well, what this initiative could help the public realise is the long-established multicultural
component of English identity. For one of the most popular English icons - the cup of tea - is a
microcosm of our imperial, global history of power politics and cultural exchange.

Yet few of these ministerial initiatives will do much good unless we rethink our approach to the
teaching of history and national identity in our schools. British Day will remain an empty initiative
(like the Empire and Commonwealth Days of the Fifties), unless children are taught a far more
comprehensive history of Britain. We need to be brave about teaching a rigorous, global
narrative of British history and identity which goes beyond the obsessive heroism and
victimhood of the Second World War.

If the union flag is going to mean something to Gordon Brown's future patriots, then they need
first of all to know our 'warts and all' past.

Welcome to the 2011 Census for England and Wales

The estimated population of England and Wales is 56,075,900. Census statistics

provide a detailed snapshot of the population and its characteristics, and underpin
funding allocation to provide public services.

The first release of 2011 Census data provides household estimates, and
population estimates by age and sex, for England and Wales and local authorities.

Date: 20 January 2011 Coverage: UK Theme: Population

A new study shows that in most regions and countries in the UK a smaller percentage of
foreign-born adults claim state benefits compared with their UK-born counterparts. Also, the
largest employment group for the foreign-born population is either elementary or
professional occupations in most regions and countries.

These figures are set out in a study released today by the Office for National Statistics,
Regional Characteristics of foreign-born people living in the United Kingdom. The study
covers all nine English regions as well as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2009.

Also included in the key findings are:

the proportion of married/civil partnered people is greater in the foreign-born
population than the UK-born population for the majority of regions and countries
the largest ethnic group for the foreign-born population is White in all regions and
countries except the West Midlands, where the largest ethnic group is Asian
 20

The London region has the largest percentage of foreign-born population comprising 34 per
cent of its population, with the West Midlands and South East second at 11 per cent. The
smallest are the North East and Wales with 5 per cent of their populations defined as
foreign-born; whilst the South West, Scotland and Northern Ireland have foreign-born
populations of 6 per cent.

In most regions there is a larger percentage of married/civil partnered persons in the

foreign-born population than for the UK-born population. The difference is greatest in the
West Midlands and London where the percentage of the foreign-born population who are
married/civil partnered is at least 17 per cent higher than for the UK-born population.
 21

highest percentage of the foreign-born population designating themselves as Christian (72

per cent), the highest percentage of Hindu followers is in the East (13 per cent), and the
West Midlands has the highest percentage of foreign-born Muslims and Sikhs (29 per cent
and 9 per cent respectively).

The largest employment group for the foreign-born population in many regions and
countries is in elementary occupations (such as labourers and couriers). This is the case in
the East Midlands (24 per cent of the foreign-born working population), the North West (21
per cent), Yorkshire and The Humber (21 per cent), Wales (19 per cent), West Midlands
and Scotland (both 17 per cent). There are also sizeable percentages of foreign-born
workers in professional occupations (such as engineers and chemists), notably in the North
East (23 per cent) and South East (19 per cent).

The percentage of foreign-born population with degrees also differs by region and country.
In the North East 34 per cent of the foreign-born population hold degrees while in the East
Midlands only 18 per cent had such a qualification.

A smaller percentage of the foreign-born population claimed state benefits or tax credits
than the UK-born population in many of the regions and countries of the UK. The
Exceptions to this are in London and The West Midlands where the difference between the
two populations is negligible.

Regional Characteristics of foreign-born people living in the United Kingdom can be found
at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?ID=2601News Release: Profiles of foreign-
born population | Page 3

Website:
www.ons.gov.uk

Figure A1.1
The 2001 Census ethnic group question asked in England
and Wales

What is your ethnic

8 group?
Choose ONE section from A to E,
then
tick the appropriate box to indicate
your cultural background.

A White

British Irish

Any other White background,

please write in

B Mixed
 22

White and Black Caribbean

White and Black African

White and Asian

Any other Mixed background,

please write in

C Asian or Asian British

Indian Pakistani

Bangladeshi

Any other Asian background,

please write in

D Black or Black British

Caribbean African

Any other Black background,

please write in

E Chinese or other ethnic group

Chinese

Any other, please write in

Source: Office for National Statistics

 23

How should data be presented for national identity in GB and the UK?

Data presentations on national identity for GB and the UK should follow the
question format of the National identity question (a) below.

Data presentation for national identity data in GB and UK

British XXX

English XXX

Scottish XXX

Welsh XXX

Northern Irish XXX

Other* XXX

To note

*Irish is combined with Other.

You are in: Background

Short History of
Immigration

The Empire Windrush, 1948

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/short_history_of_immigration.stm

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002
 24

The early story of the British Isles is one of colonisation. Firstly, celtic and pict tribes arrived and
formed the first communities in the British Isles.

Then came the Romans. In 250AD, Rome sent a contingent of black legionnaires, drawn from the
African part of the empire, to stand guard on Hadrians Wall.

There is no evidence that these men stayed in Britannia and when the Romans finally quit in the fifth
century, the way was clear for the Germanic tribes that would slowly become the English.

Four hundred years after the Jutes, Angles and Saxons colonised modern-day southern England, the
Vikings arrived, bringing a distinctive new influence to the cultural pot. The Vikings' sphere of
influence was northern Britain and modern-day East Anglia.

The most dramatic of these immigrations was the Norman Conquest in 1066. The Normans,
descended from Vikings who had settled in France, brought with them their early-French language
which would fundamentally change the direction of English, government and law. To this day, a
number of Parliamentary ceremonies can be dated back to the Franco-Norman era.

The first Norman king, William the Conqueror, invited Jews to settle in England to help develop
commerce, finance and trade.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

During the Middle Ages, the few black faces in Britain appeared to be entertainers linked to royal
entourages.

African drummers lived in Edinburgh in 1505. In London, Henry VII and his son Henry VIII both
employed a black trumpeter named in one scroll as "John Blanke".

But conquest of the New World changed everything. As Europeans established plantations in the
Americas, they needed cheap labour. They found it by buying into the slave trade that already
existed in northern Africa.

The Portuguese and Spanish began buying slaves from African

and Arab merchants and taking them to work the plantations. In
1562, John Hawkyns made England's first foray into the trade
when he sold 300 West African men to planters in Haiti.

A few years later, black slaves began appearing in wealthy

households in England. When wealthy plantation owners sent their
children to schools in England, they would sometimes send slaves
too.

The legal status of these immigrants was vague because their

arrival was tied to their English owner and their freedom appeared
to relate to whether or not they were Christian. John Blanke as he appears in a
scroll.
Picture copyright: College of Arms,
There was some legal debate on whether or not a man brought to London.
a free country could be anything but free. But it amounted to
nothing and the trade grew.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

In the early eighteenth century, treaties between European powers changed the political map. The
 25

United Kingdom, as it had now become, won more access to the New World and its riches.

Merchants from Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow and London rapidly expanded the slave trade and brought
goods and riches back to Britain, wealth that would bankroll the coming industrial revolution.

They also increased the number of African men, women and children resident in Britain.
Approximately 14,000 black people lived in England by 1770.

But few of them had real freedom and a movement to abolish slavery emerged. In 1772, the
abolitionists brought a famous case to the courts. The judges were reluctant to rule on slavery, not
least because of its economic importance to the UK.

The abolitionists won a minor point that a slave could not be forcibly transported from England. But
in practice it made little difference to their lives.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

Eventually the abolitionists became one of the largest popular protests of British history and the end
of slavery in Britain came in two stages.

In 1807, Parliament banned the trade - but not slavery itself. In effect, slaving ships still operated,
the only difference being that captains threw their captives overboard if they were in danger of being
caught.

In 1833, Parliament finally banned all slavery across the British Empire - though later investigations
showed that tied labour still existed in many areas including India.

Abolition meant a virtual halt to the arrival of black people to Britain, just as immigration from
Europe was increasing.

There were some notable exceptions. Wealthy families brought Indian servants to Britain. Cama and
Company became the first Indian merchant to open offices in London and Liverpool. Black and
Chinese seamen began putting down the roots of small communities in British ports, not least
because they were abandoned there by their employers. Between 1830 and 1850, tens of thousands
of Irish arrived in Britain, fleeing poverty at home.

Britain's first non-white MP, Indian Dadabhai Naoroji, was elected to the House of Commons in 1892.
A few years earlier, Arthur Wharton, born in modern day Ghana, became Britain's first black
professional footballer.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

During the two world wars, hundreds of thousands of men from across the Empire fought for Britain.
India alone provided 1.3m soldiers for the First World War, 138,000 serving on the Western Front.

During the Second World War, almost 60,000 British merchant seamen came from the sub-continent.
Some of the men stayed in Britain during the inter-war years, forming small communities in ports.

Bengali seamen, known as Lascars, went to work in Scottish collieries but were subjected to racial
prejudice.

They were not the only ones. There were no clear rules on immigration but officialdom appeared not
to approve.

Government feared the impact of black faces in white Britain - not least after a spate of race riots in
 26

1919.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

At the end of the Second World War there were work shortages in Europe and labour shortages in
Britain. The government began looking for immigrants.

Some 157,000 Poles were the first groups to be allowed to settle in the UK, partly because of ties
made during the war years. They were joined by Italians but it was not enough to meet the need.

Many men from the West Indies had fought for the "mother country" but returned to civilian life with
few opportunities.

Their sense of patriotism, coupled with the need to find work, steered them towards the UK.

Despite an apparent official reluctance to allow immigration from the fast-disappearing empire, the
government could not recruit enough people from Europe and turned to these men.

On 22 June 1948, the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in London, delivering hundreds of men
from the West Indies.

Many had returned to rejoin the RAF. Others had been encouraged by adverts for work.

The day marked what would become a massive change to British society - the start of mass
immigration to the UK and the arrival of different cultures.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

As mass immigration continued in the 1950s, so did the rise of racial violence and prejudice. Many
areas including Birmingham, Nottingham and west London experienced rioting as white people feared
the arrival of a black community.

On one hand, these men and women had been offered work in a country they had been brought up
to revere. On the other, many were experiencing racial prejudice they had never expected.

Legislation had allowed people from the Empire and Commonwealth unhindered rights to enter
Britain because they carried a British passport.

Under political pressure, the government legislated three times in less than a decade to make
immigration for non-white people harder and harder. By 1972, legislation meant that a British
passport holder born overseas could only settle in Britain if they, firstly, had a work permit and,
secondly, could prove that a parent or grandparent had been born in the UK.

In practice, this meant children born to white families in the remnants of Empire or the former
colonies could enter Britain. Their black counterparts could not.

While government was tightening the entry rules, racial tension meant it had to try to tackle
prejudice and two race relations acts followed.

In 1945, Britain's non-white residents numbered in the low thousands. By 1970 they numbered
approximately 1.4 million - a third of these children born in the United Kingdom.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002
 27

The government had greatly restricted immigration by the 1970s, but had not stopped it altogether.
Some 83,000 immigrants from the Commonwealth settled in the UK between 1968 and 1975, largely
through gaining work permits or obtaining permission to join relatives.

The most significant immigration of the decade came in 1972 when the Ugandan dictator General Idi
Amin expelled 80,000 African Asians from the country, families who had been encouraged to settle
there during the days of Empire. Many held British passports and, amid a major crisis, the UK
admitted 28,000 in two months.

In 1976 the government established the Commission for Racial Equality, the statutory body charged
with tackling racial discrimination.

In 1978 Viv Anderson became the first black footballer to be selected for the full England team and
went on to win 30 caps.

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

By the 1980s Britain's immigration policy had two prongs. Firstly, there were strict controls on entry.

Secondly, the state said it would protect the rights of ethnic minorities. Critics suggested that the
two prongs gave conflicting signals on the place of the immigrant communities - and their British-
born children - in society. As manufacturing declined, work permits were harder to get unless you
had specialist skills or professional trading.

This meant that the largest immigrant groups were Americans (to banking and industry), Australians,
New Zealanders and South Africans making use of family-ties entry rules, and South Asian men and
women entering the medical professions.

The riots of 1981 were largely sparked by racial issues. In Brixton, the spiritual home of Britain's
afro-Caribbean community, youths rioted amid resentment that the police were targeting more and
more young black men in the belief that it would stop street crime. Similar riots followed in Liverpool
and the Midlands. The subsequent Scarman Report found that "racial disadvantage is a fact of
current British life".

250-1066 1500-1700 1713-1772 The 1800s 1914-1945

1946-1948 1950-1971 1972-1979 The 1980s 1987-2002

On 11 June 1987, the face of British politics changed when four non-white politicians were elected at
the same General Election. Today there are 12 non-white MPs. Campaigners say that equal
representation would require at least 55 black MPs in the House of Commons.

The inquiry into the police's handling of the 1993 murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence led
directly to new anti-discrimination legislation passed in 2000.

In the years following the fall of the Iron Curtain, a new movement of people began, some fleeing
political persecution, others seeking a better life in western Europe.

The growth of asylum seeker applications contributed to a new growth of immigration to the UK.
Between 1998 and 2000, some 45,000 people arrived from Africa, 22,700 from the Indian sub-
continent, 25,000 from Asia and almost 12,000 from the Americas. Some 125,000 people were
allowed to settle in the UK in 2000.

But the rise in asylum seeker arrivals has seen a rise in racial tensions.

In May 2002 the far-right British National Party won three local council seats, a year after racial
 28

tensions and were blamed for riots in northern towns. The government's plans for a new nationality
and immigration legislation, including a possible citizenship test, sparked new controversy.

Fifty years after the start of mass immigration to the UK, questions are still being asked about
whether or not the UK can become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself - or whether there is still
a long road to be travelled.

Councils in poorest areas suffering biggest budget cuts, Labour

says
Hilary Benn accuses government of unfairness as he publishes data that shows cuts for
richer councils are up to 16 times smaller

The Guardian, 25 August 2014

The poorest areas of England have endured council cuts under the coalition worth 16 times
as much per household as the richest areas, research has claims.

Hilary Benn, the shadow communities secretary, said his figures showed the government
had "failed to apply the basic principle of fairness" when allocating money to local
government.

However, he confirmed that, given Labour's commitment to matching the government's

spending plans for 2015-16, a government led by Ed Miliband would not be in a position to
raise overall council spending. Instead it would focus on distributing money more fairly, he
said.

Benn's figures are based on the amount per household that councils are losing between
2010-11 and 2015-16. Councils covering the 10 most deprived areas of England measured
according to the index of multiple deprivation are losing 782 on average per household,
while authorities covering the richest areas are losing just 48 on average.

Hart district council in Hampshire, the least deprived local authority, is losing 28 per
household, while in Liverpool District B, the most deprived area, the figure is 807.

The figures reinforce claims that have been made by organisations such as the Audit
Commission, the local government spending watchdog, which said in a report last year that
"councils in the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in
government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas."

Benn, who released the figures as part of Labour's summer campaign on the theme of "the
choice" between Labour and the Tories, said: "The prime minister and the local government
secretary say that tough times involve tough choices, but they have forgotten one very
important principle. Tough times demand tough choices that are fair.

"And yet if we look at the way in which the Tory-led government has chosen to take most
from those who have least the most deprived local authorities it is clear just how unfair
and unjustifiable this is."
 29

In an open letter to council leaders, he said: "As we will inherit, and stick to, the
government's spending plans for 2015-16, we will not have any more money to give to local
government.

"But there will be one difference: the money we have will be distributed more fairly."

In a response issued by the department for communities, Kris Hopkins, the local government
minister, attacked Labour's local government record: "Under Labour, council tax bills more
than doubled whilst local services like bin collections halved.

"Ed Miliband would hike up taxes on people's homes, and in Wales, the Labour government
are now actively supporting monthly bin collections. It's clear under Labour, you pay more
and get less.

"Local government, which accounts for a quarter of public spending, was strangled in red
tape by Labour, who turned a blind eye to massive waste and inefficiency in the public
sector and ran up massive public debts.

"Councils need to do their bit to help pay off the deficit that Labour left. Councils can save
money through more joint working, better procurement and cutting fraud."

Poor doors: the segregation of London's inner-city flat dwellers

The Guardian, Friday 25 July 2014

Multimillion pound housing developments in London are segregating less well-off tenants
from wealthy homebuyers by forcing them to use separate entrances.

A Guardian investigation has discovered a growing trend in the capital's upmarket apartment
blocks which are required to include affordable homes in order to win planning permission
for the poorer residents to be forced to use alternative access, a phenomenon being dubbed
"poor doors". Even bicycle storage spaces, rubbish disposal facilities and postal deliveries
are being separated.

The Green party accused developers of showing "contempt for ordinary people" by
enforcing such two-tier policies.

This week New York's mayor, Bill De Blasio, said he planned to take action to prevent new
developments being built with separate entrances and facilities for low-income residents. His
pledge followed a furore over a luxury block on the city's swanky Upper West Side which
will have what US newspapers have dubbed a "poor door" for the social housing units on the
site. But while the approval for segregated entrances in just one building in New York
generated headlines, they are fast becoming standard practice in London.

"When Ken Livingstone left office he was keen that all developments should have their
social housing 'pepperpotted' mixed in with all the other more upmarket accommodation,"
 30

said Ed Mead, a director at estate agent Douglas & Gordon which sells upmarket properties
in central London. "This didn't go down well with developers with the result that most
developments now have a separate entrance and a different look."

Tracey Kellett, a buying agent who trawls the capital looking for homes for wealthy clients,
said a number of developments have separate entrances "so the two social strata don't have
to meet". In one: "The affordable [housing] has vile coloured plastic panels on the outside
rather than blingy glass."

At one building bordering the City financial district, the Guardian discovered wealthy
owners accessed their homes via a hotel-style lobby area, while social housing tenants enter
through a side door in an adjacent alley alongside trade entrances.

In marketing information for another development currently under construction, would-be

residents have been promised that the affordable homes will have a separate entrance, no
access to car or cycle parking and that post and bins will also be divided.

As the London housing market has boomed the expectations of some of the capital's
wealthiest homebuyers have grown and many properties now have communal areas akin to
those in some of the world's best hotels.

Service charges to maintain these are high, and a separate entrance means housing
associations and their tenants do not face these extra costs. However, as in New York, there
are concerns that it is leading to increasingly divided communities.

Green party London assembly member Darren Johnson said: "This trend shows contempt for
ordinary people, and is about developers selling luxury flats to rich investors who don't want
to mix with local people."

He added: "The mayor and councils have been turning a blind eye to this for too long, they
should simply refuse applications that have separate facilities or that refuse any affordable
housing on this basis." []

Side-entrance shame

The brochure for the upmarket apartments of One Commercial Street, on the edge of the
City, boasts of a "bespoke entrance lobby ... With the ambience of a stylish hotel reception
area, it creates a stylish yet secure transition space between your home and the City streets".

In common with many of London's new concrete and glass residential blocks there's a
concierge, on hand 24/7 to service the every need of residents paying a minimum of
500,000 which only buys a studio flat to live in this booming part of the city.

But the lobby is out of bounds to some of those who live in the building. What the brochure
doesn't mention is a second door, with a considerably less glamorous lobby, tucked away in
an alley to the side of the building, alongside the trade entrance for Pret a Manger. This is
the entrance for One Commercial Street's affordable housing tenants.
 31

Curzon Street, where developers argued affordable housing provision would result in 'design
inefficiencies'. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

In a bid to ease the housing crisis, developers are obliged to provide a set proportion of
affordable homes when they draw up a new project, but they are often able to negotiate this
figure down with local planners. Some provide the cheaper homes in separate blocks, but in
a single structure development the affordable homes are often on separate floors with
separate entrances, lifts, car parks and even rubbish bins, so that upmarket apartment buyers
have no contact with those occupying the social housing in their buildings.

In some cases, developers have even used the fact they need to provide separate doors and
lifts to argue against putting affordable homes on the same site as their premium apartments.
Planning documents for the 56 Curzon Street development in Mayfair show that the
developers told the local council "that on-site provision of affordable housing would result
in significant design inefficiencies due to the need for separate entrances and building
cores".

Some are coy about the subject. Native Land, which is currently building Cheyne Terrace
just off Kings Road in Chelsea, complete with a swimming pool and gym, refused to
comment when asked if its 13 affordable housing units would be accessed via a separate
door. However, the website of John Robertson Architects, which has designed the building,
makes it clear this is the case.

In north-west London the developers behind Queen's Park Place are more upfront about how
its 28 affordable and 116 market-rate homes will co-exist its marketing website says the
external appearance will be uniform across all properties or "tenure blind". But inside the
building the two types of resident will be treated very differently: "Affordable tenants will
not have use of the main private residential entrance, private courtyard gardens or basement
car and cycle parking. Services including postal delivery and refuse storage are also
divided."

[] Through the main door of One Commercial Street the lights shine brightly in the hotel-
style lobby. There is luxury marble tiling and plush sofas, and a sign on the door alerts
residents to the fact that the concierge is available. Round the back, the entrance to the
 32

affordable homes is a cream corridor, decorated only with grey mail boxes and a poster
warning tenants that they are on CCTV and will be prosecuted if they cause any damage.

Brooke Terrelonga lives here with her nine-month-old son they moved into a social rented
flat four months ago and she was surprised to find that she wasn't allowed to use the front
entrance. Her mother, who doesn't want to be named, said she felt unhappy about her
daughter returning home at night to the poorly-lit alleyway. She motioned towards two
lights on the wall, either side of the door, which were the only lighting in sight. She said:
"It's like the cream is at the front and they've sent the rubbish to the back."

Another tenant, Judy Brown, had also expected to be able to get to her flat through the main
entrance. "I call it the posh door. I feel a little bit insulted. It's segregation." Brown said that
the lifts kept breaking down and she often had to take the stairs to her ninth-floor flat.
"When both the lifts weren't working they did say that if you were pregnant, had a health
problem or a baby in a buggy you could use the main entrance," she said. Otherwise, the
tenants said, they were "locked out" of the main lobby.

James Moody, managing director of Redrow London, which built One Commercial Street
said in a statement that his firm was committed to providing homes "at all financial levels"
and that 34% of the total accommodation in the building was affordable.

"As One Commercial Street is located on the edge of the City, we have built a product that
appeals to this market of young professionals and families who want to live close to their
place of work and enjoy the benefits of a full concierge service and hotel style lobby, which
they pay a premium for through their service charge.

"Affordable accommodation is managed separately by Network Housing who have full

control of the services and facilities provided to its tenants and have a set cap for service
charges.

"In addition, we have taken every step necessary to ensure that our development meets the
needs of all of its residents and we go through a lengthy consultation process with housing
associations to establish both a design that meets their requirements whilst making it as
affordable as possible for their residents."

Why doesn't Britain make things any more?

In the past 30 years, the UK's manufacturing sector has shrunk by two-thirds, the greatest
de-industrialisation of any major nation. It was done in the name of economic modernisation
but what has replaced it?

The Guardian, 16 November 2011

 33

A ship being built at Swan Hunter, 1968; the abandoned MG Rover plant at Longbridge,
2005. Photograph: Alamy/Harry Starling

Before moving to Yale and becoming a bestselling historian, Paul Kennedy grew up on
Tyneside in the 50s and 60s. "A world of great noise and much dirt," is how he remembers
it, where the chief industry was building ships and his father and uncles were boilermakers
in Wallsend. Last year the academic gave a lecture that reminisced a little about those days.

"There was a deep satisfaction about making things," he said. "A deep satisfaction among all
of those that had supplied the services, whether it was the local bankers with credit; whether
it was the local design firms. When a ship was launched at [Newcastle firm] Swan Hunter all
the kids at the local school went to see the thing our fathers had put together and when we
looked down from the cross-wired fence, tried to find Uncle Mick, Uncle Jim or your dad,
this notion of an integrated, productive community was quite astonishing."

Wandering around Wallsend a couple of weeks ago, I didn't spot any ships being launched,
or even built. The giant yard Kennedy mentioned, Swan Hunter, shut a few years back,
leaving acres of muddy wasteland that still haven't lured a buyer.

You still find industrial estates, of course, and they look the part: overalled men milling
about, passing lorries. Only up close does it become clear that there's not much actual
industry going on.

[] What's driven the de-industrial revolution? In significant part, it's a tale about where
Britain is going, one that's been told by Conservative and Labour alike over the past 30
years. It's a simple message that comes in three parts. One, the old days of heavy industry
are gone for good. The future lies in working with our brains, not our hands. Two, the job of
government in economic policy is simply to get out of the way. Oh, and finally, we need to
fling open our markets to trade with other countries because, despite the evidence of
countless Wimbledons and World Cups, the Westminster elite believe that the British can
always take on the competition and win.
 34

Yet there's ample evidence that the promised rewards of this post-industrial future haven't
materialised. What was sold as economic modernisation has led to industrial decay, with too
often nothing to replace it.

[] Meanwhile Britain has been undergoing one of the biggest industrial declines seen in
postwar western Europe. When Thatcher came to power, manufacturing accounted for
almost 30% of Britain's national income and employed 6.8 million people. By the time
Brown left Downing Street last May, it was down to just over 11% of the economy, with a
workforce of 2.5 million. (Two caveats need to be made. First, manufacturing is partly a
productivity game: you get more machines in, so you employ fewer staff on a particular
task. Second, other countries have stepped back a bit from manufacturing all those new
Labour-isms about the competitive threat from China and India were not just babble.)

Even so, by any standards these numbers represent a collapse. As the government itself
admits, no other major economy has been through our scale of de-industrialisation. The
Germans and French have kept their big domestic brand names and with them their supply
chains of smaller suppliers and partners. In Britain there's been no such industrial husbandry,
with the result that we have few big manufacturers left but a profusion of bit-part makers.
Is that a bad thing? Plenty of evidence suggests so. Bad economically, and terrible socially
and culturally.

[] In the north-east, manufacturing jobs have nearly halved since 1997 alone one of the
biggest drops anywhere in the country. So what's come along in its place? The simple
answer is: not a lot. A few minute's walk from Newcastle train station is the old Scottish &
Newcastle brewery, which is now called Science City. It was meant to be home to hi-tech
new businesses, but all you can see there is some fancy student accommodation and acres of
barren ground.

Its not the school you go to that determines how well you
do its the class system, stupid
By Owen Jones Opinion Friday, 29 June 2012

Getty Images
 35

What determines above all how well you do educationally? For most, thats a fairly
straightforward answer: its down to how good your school is. But the evidence doesnt back
it up. The massive educational divisions in our society can be explained above all else by
rampant broader social and economic inequalities. Its the class system, stupid.

A few months ago, educational campaigner Fiona Millar and I went to City of London
School to argue for the abolition of private education. This elite school, which charges
13,000 in annual fees (or nearly-two-thirds the median pay packet), is not exactly home
turf, you would think, but my argument was simple: your parents are wasting their money.
Last year, an OECD report revealed that privately educated students in Britain did better
overall (as you would expect), but those with the same backgrounds at state schools did
better than them. Once you took into account the socio-economic background of pupils, state
schools in the UK outperformed private schools by a considerable margin.

Another separate study , focusing on middle-class pupils at inner-city schools, backed up

the findings. Most performed brilliantly and, of those who went to university, 15% ended
up at Oxbridge.

Or take a study in Scotland , which showed that, by the age of five, children with better-off,
degree-educated parents had on average a vocabulary 18 months ahead of poorer
classmates. How could any school effectively tackle such a huge gap at this early age?

My own experience backs this up. My primary school was in the bottom 5% of results
nationally not long after I left: I was the only boy that Im aware of who ended up doing A-
levels, let alone going to university. That wasnt because I was naturally brighter, but
because I had odds stacked in my favour compared to the friends I grew up with.

Studies on grammar schools similarly show just how overriding a factor class is. It is argued
by the Tory Right, among others, that the abolition of grammar schools crippled social
mobility in Britain. But looking at results of the 164 remaining grammar schools suggests
this is not true. The Financial Times did a study comparing GCSE performance in three
regions: Kent (which still operates the grammar system), London and England. Kent was on
the national average in terms of performance, but had the least equitable distribution of
results. A child on free school meals in Kent had a 55% chance of getting results that put
them in the bottom fifth; just 4% achieved results in the top fifth nationally. Kent was
significantly less socially mobile than London.

An earlier report in the heyday of grammar schools showed that they failed the minority of
working-class children who were not rejected at the age of 11. The 1954 Government study
showed that, of 16,000 grammar school pupils from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds,
around 9,000 failed to get three passes at O-Levels. Of these children, around 5,000 left
school by the end of fifth year; just one in twenty got two A-Levels.

As well as stripping schools of local accountability, thats why academies miss the point. It
is argued by the Government that Academies have secured above average increases in
standards. But according to research : Overall, these changes in GCSE performance in
Academies relative to matched schools are statistically indistinguishable from one another.
A report by the National Audit Office in 2010 revealed that the intake of Academies had
changed: they now had fewer pupils who were on free school meals:
 36

The proportion of such pupils attending Academies between 2002-03 and 2009-10 has
fallen from 45.3 to 27.8 per cent it is substantial improvements by the less disadvantaged
pupils that are driving Academies improved performance overall.

So how do we tackle educational inequalities? Above all, it means tackling broader

inequalities: the stresses that poverty puts on some peoples lives; investing in good housing,
with enough space to study; a good diet (through free school breakfasts and dinners, for
example); and so on. It means addressing the early educational gap by investing in SureStart
and nursery education. It also means promoting social mixing in schools: OECD research
suggests that a better mix improves the results of the least well-off students without
dragging down overall performance. That would mean getting rid of the remaining grammar
schools, ensuring mixing in comprehensive schools (for example, through a lottery system
for high school access), and abolishing private schools (starting by scrapping their charitable
status, which is worth 100m of taxpayers money).

Finland consistently tops PISAs international rankings for best-performing education

systems: it has no selection, free school meals, and very few private schools. But it also has
a far more equal and less fragmented society. If were going to improve educational results
in this country, it means less of an obsessive focus on the schools and more attention to the
grotesque broader inequalities of modern British society.

Britain's cosmopolitan capital

The world comes to London

Net immigration into Britain is higher than it has ever been. Good

Aug 7th 2003 | The Economist From the print edition

THE huddled masses have a new destination. As a proportion of its population, and in
absolute numbers, London now has a higher inflow of foreigners than do either New York
or Los Angeles. More are coming, and staying, than ever before. According to many voices
in the papers, politics and pressure groups, this must be a time-bomb.

For 20 years, until the early 1990s, net immigration to Britain hovered around the zero mark,
plus or minus 50,000. Then numbers started rising. The end of the cold war led to civil
conflicts that drove people out of their homelands. Growing prosperity gave more and more
people access to air travel. The trains through the Channel Tunnel, which started running in
1993, offered them another route in to Britain.

And there were good reasons to come to Britain. Its economy has done better, over the past
ten years, than those of the other big European countries. London was the magnet. Big
Bangthe liberalisation of the financial services industry in the late 1980sled to a
decade-long boom in the City. That meant jobs not just for American and French bankers,
but also for Colombian and Somali cleaners. London, where the police never check your
identity papers, is a great place for a foreigner, legal or illegal. Anybody can find a
comforting bunch of people of their own nationality somewhere in the city. Anybody can
turn up one evening and find a job, of some sort, the next morning. Anybody can disappear.
 37

Getting in became easier, too. The government has encouraged immigration by issuing more
work permits, especially in areas where skills are in short supplynurses,
doctors, IT professionals, for instance. In the mid-1990s, around 30,000 work permits a year
were being issued. In 2002, 137,500 were. More people have been given asylum; and, as the
system got bogged down, more people have waited longer while their applications were
processed. So, by 2001, net migration to Britain as a whole had risen to 172,000, with
120,000 of them bound for London and the south-east. And they're only the legal ones.

Waiter, there's a foreigner in my soup

What has this done for Britain? Changed London dramatically, for a start. When did you last
have a British waiter? Whatever happened to the famous British nanny? When did you last
go to a City reception and not hear a mix of accents? Can you imagine the blandness of the
place without them? At a macroeconomic level, the foreigners have inevitably boosted
growth, in the not-very-interesting sense that more people means a bigger economy; but it
has also, probably, made the economy work better. Giving foreigners access to the labour
market has the same sort of effect as opening an economy to trade: more competition means
greater efficiency.
Even so, many argue that Britain is paying too high a price for a cosmopolitan buzz and a
smoother-working labour market. They fear two consequences in particular: population
pressures in the south-east of England and ethnic tensions.
An extra 120,000 people a year in a region as densely-populated as the south-east is, the
argument goes, too much. It means more congestion, more concrete and less beauty. Locals
don't want more housebuilding. The government can impose it on councils only by giving
itself powers to override the objections of local councils and decreeingas John Prescott,
the deputy prime minister, did last weekthat hundreds of thousands of new homes should
b But there's no need for this. Over the past decade, London and the south-east have
absorbed a net 680,000 foreigners, without losing much countryside. How has that
happened? Partly through development of old industrial areassuch as Docklandsin a
place which remains thinly populated compared with the world's other great cities. But it is
also partly because, as immigration has fuelled demand and London house prices have risen
faster than those in the rest of the country, Londoners have cashed in, sold their houses and
moved to cheaper, emptier bits of Britain (see article (/node/1974544) ).

The alternative to concrete

Why, then, is the government so keen on all these new houses? Because public-sector
workers are being priced out of the property market. Vacancies in London schools, for
instance, are higher than anywhere else in the country. But concreting over the south-east is
not the only solution to this problem. The government could always pay public-sector
workers in London and the south-east more and those elsewhere less. That solution does not,
however, appeal to the Labour Party's paymasters, the trade unions.
But what of ethnic tensionsan unvoiced fear behind much of the unfavourable comment?
Is a bit of economic efficiency worth many summers of race riots? Probably not; but, in
Britain at least, there's not much connection between race and civil disorder. Certainly, the
spotlight fell on Oldham and Bradford, which have big Asian populations, when they went
up in flames a couple of years ago. But white Britons are quite capable of organising such
entertainments without help from immigrants, as they showed in Blackbird Leys in Oxford
 38

in 1991 and Portsmouth in 2000. What's more, London, with its dense ethnic mix, has not
seen a good riot for two decades; and the disturbances in Brixton in the early 1980s were a
reaction to heavy-handed policing, not a race riot.
That said, immigration is changing Britain, and people find change frightening.
Governments need to be careful. That means, for instance, letting immigrants stay where
there are lots of other immigrants, and where they are therefore inconspicuous. Some of the
loudest recent rows have been over setting up camps for asylum-seekers in bits of the (still
very white) countryside. And the government needs to address the question, raised this week
by the Conservatives, of screening immigrants for infectious diseasesa reasonable thing to
do to those invited in for economic reasons (on work permits) but not those given sanctuary
on moral grounds (asylum-seekers).

But the best thing for Britons to do about immigration would be to embrace it. It is nice to
be wanted. And, economics aside, foreigners make the place infinitely more fun.

From the print edition

All eyes on London

Nov 17th 2011 | Janan Ganesh: political correspondent, The Economist from The World In
2012 print edition

Even for a city with two thousand years behind it, 2012 will be a remarkable one for
London. It will hold a mayoral election, just the fourth in its history, in May. Over the
summer, it will celebrate Queen Elizabeths diamond jubilee, marking her 60 years on the
throne. Then, in July, the Olympic games come to town. In 2005, winning the right to host
the planets largest sporting event (give or take the football World Cup) against competition
from Paris confirmed London as the ultimate global city, a cosmopolis whose culture and
economy were defined by their openness to the world.

That victory was soon followed by trauma. First, the terrorist attacks on July 7th 2005,
which killed 52 people. Then, in 2008, as Britain entered a recession it is still struggling to
exit, London looked likely to suffer disproportionately. Its colossal financial centre and
housing bubble were obvious liabilities. The post-national city state was set to become a bit
more like the rest of the country: less wealthy, less diverse, less at ease with the furious swirl
of globalisation. Instead, London got away with it. Far more removed culturally and
economically from its host nation than New York, Tokyo or Paris, its economy shrank by
less than any other regions, immigrants continued to flock to what might be historys most
diverse city, and house prices actually rose.

London is in a strong position now because it avoided complacency during its long, finance-
fuelled boom. Instead, it worked on its weaknesses. Londons transport infrastructure has
gone from poor to adequate to verging on good, if expensive. The bus network has been
enhanced, Tube lines extended, and the Docklands Light Railway and Eurostar link to Paris
built from scratch. Vast new projectssuch as Crossrail, which will traverse the city, and an
upgrade of the Underground to boost its capacityare under way. London also, at last,
created that elected mayoralty. Since 2000, the city has been able to craft policies that suit
 39

itself, such as a congestion charge, a cycle-hire scheme and a permissive planning policy
whose latest offspring is the Shard, which will be the tallest building in the European Union
when it opens in 2012.

But London must remain vigilant to retain its position as perhaps the pre-eminent global
hub. Three threats stand out. First, the backlash against the liberal orthodoxies of the boom
years could make the capital a harder place to do business. The mayor, Boris Johnson,
implores his Conservative colleagues in central government to resist popular pressure for a
tough line on immigration, taxation of the rich and banking regulation.

Second, London needs more airport capacity. Heathrow, the busiest international airport in
the world, is overstretched. Thanks to local protests and environmental concerns, it is
unlikely to get the third runway it wants. To avoid losing traffic (and business) to Paris and
Frankfurt, London must either expand its other airports, such as Stansted, or build a new
colossus. Mr Johnson would like his legacy to be agreement on a vast new airport in the
Thames estuary.

Finally, London must tend to its social problems. In general, crime is stable but burglary,
robbery and some weapon-related crimes are on the rise. Around the world, the city is
developing a violent reputation, rather like New Yorks in the 1980s. Londoners should be
proud that rich and poor are jumbled up far more than in ghettoised cities abroad. But it
makes social frictions hard to avoid. Twice in 2011during the protests against public-
spending cuts in the spring and during the riots in Augustthe Metropolitan Police were
briefly overwhelmed by civil disorder. And they will now have to keep London and its
visitors secure with less money than they are used to.

London has innate advantages as a global centre. It has the English language. It has an ideal
time zone and geographical location. Then there is that openness to the world, shaped by
centuries as the heart of a vast empire. It won the right to host the Olympics by presenting
itself as a uniquely global, rather than quintessentially British, city. But in a world of intense
competition from the booming cities of the East, as well as the more familiar rivalries with
the likes of Paris and New York, London cannot rely on its inherent strengths alone.

Urban riots: Thirty years after Brixton

Guardian.co.uk Monday August 8 2011 Editorial

Three days on, with youths skirmishing with police in Lewisham and attacking businesses in
Hackney late on Monday, it is clear that Britain, and particularly London, is experiencing
some of its most serious and most destructive urban violence since the Brixton and Toxteth
riots of 1981. Thirty years on, some of the echoes of those traumatic earlier events are very
strong: riots taking place against the backdrop of a royal wedding and an economic
downturn; riots in some of the same locations, even in some cases the same streets; riots
repeating many of the same patterns of events including the looting of clothes and
televisions and all of it resulting in many of the same public and political responses. Some
things, though, are different.
 40

One of these, much debated over the past 24 hours, is the role of technology. There was
much speculation, back in 1981, about secret organisers pulling the strings of copycat riots.
Almost all of those allegations those were the days before mobile phones proved to be as
baseless as the earlier claims that French secret agents were behind the Gordon riots of 1780
(in which 285 Londoners were shot dead) or that 19th-century outbreaks of rural rick-
burning were masterminded by "distant and foreign incendiaries". This time, there is no lack
of anecdotal evidence about the use of social networks and BlackBerry Messenger to focus
and co-ordinate some of the rioting. It would be astonishing if there was no such role. But it
is dangerous merely to dub these the BBM riots and leave it at that. Rioting should not be
condoned, much less romanticised. But it tends to represent something more than a
conspiracy. Experience teaches that even rioting needs to be treated as chosen and explicable
conduct even when it is indisputably wrong, as now.

There is, though, an important difference between 1981 and 2011. Thirty years ago, Lord
Scarman's landmark report concluded that the Brixton riots were "essentially an outburst of
anger and resentment by young black people against the police". The evidence for that
conclusion was overwhelming. Thirty years ago, London's police had provided repeated
provocation for concern and anger. Much policing of that era was too aggressive, too high-
handed, based on crude and often racist stereotypes, and lacked any convincing
accountability, either strategically or for individual abuses.

It would be reckless to pretend that the latest riots owe nothing to bad policing as well as
bad people. The circumstances of the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham, the official
response (or lack of it) to a protest against his killing, and the local backdrop to these events,
must be fully examined before a final judgment is made. Moreover, police use of guns will
always run the risk of lethal abuse. But it is also clear that there have been major changes,
almost all of them for the better, in the policing of London and of black communities, in the
years since Scarman. Police training, behaviour, leadership, methods and accountability
have all been qualitatively improved. Tottenham is also an improved place in countless
ways.

Today's rioting has set that all back, in heartbreaking destructive individual and community
ways. Yet the riots of 2011, like those of 1981, still have to be understood, though not in any
way excused or justified, so that they can be overcome. The riots are a product of the lives
which the rioters choose or feel constrained to live. Blaming the riots on individual
wickedness, conspiracies or on government spending cuts is too glib for such complex
issues, though they cannot be dismissed altogether even so. Both conspiracy and deprivation
are part of the complex and grim story, as is the cult of violence, especially guns, and a rage
against exclusion from consumerist fulfilment. A new Scarman would no longer be able to
explain these riots as an outburst of resentment against the police. But they are an outburst
of resentment and a mark of manifold failure all the same.
 41

Immigration rules to get tougher as Conservatives bid to ward

off Ukip threat

NIGEL MORRIS DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR THE INDEPENDENT SUNDAY 25

MAY 2014

Tough new rules to limit immigration from the European Union are planned by the
Conservatives in an attempt to stem the flow of votes to the UK Independence Party.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, confirmed today she was considering a series of moves
to deter EU nationals from heading to this country and to deport them if they are claiming
benefits and do not have a realistic prospect of finding a job.

Some of the measures will be announced in the Queens Speech next month, while others
could be promised in the 2015 Tory manifesto. Mrs May also accused the partys Liberal
Democrat Coalition partners of thwarting moves to tighten border controls.

Public anger over levels of immigration helped Ukip to gain 161 seats in last weeks local
elections. The anti-EU party could also top the vote in the European election results, which
are announced tonight. Senior Tories fear the surge in support for Ukip threatens to deprive
the Conservatives of victory at the general election.

Mrs May told the BBCs Andrew Marr programme that the Government wanted to halve the
amount of time immigrants can claim benefits from six months to three. She also confirmed
they were examining moves to deport EU nationals living in this country without working.
The Home Secretary was speaking after David Camerons promise to cut net migration to
tens of thousands by the next election took another blow as figures last week showed it
stood at 212,000 in 2013.

The driving force behind the continuing influx is a stream of EU nationals heading to
Britain. The Government has little power to stop them because of the EUs rules on
freedom of movement. Mrs May repeatedly said cutting migration to tens of thousands
was a target and sidestepped suggestions that it was a promise.

She said: In those areas we can control that is, immigration from outside the European
Union - everything we have done as a Government has been having an impact. The Work
and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, said today he wanted to introduce laws this year
to restrict benefit claims to three months. Mrs May told the BBC: We have been looking at
various measures and we will continue to look at measures.

Asked about Mr Duncan Smiths plans, she said: We will look at that timing. We havent
yet got agreement across the coalition to do that. But these are the sorts of measures we keep
looking at because in immigration you can never stand still. She said: It is no surprise to
anybody that there have been some long-standing, possibly heated at times, discussions
among the coalition on some of these issues of immigration.
 42

IDENTITY ISSUES AND BRITISHNESS

Gor Gordon Browns Speech at the Fabian Society on January 14, 2006

The Future of Britishness

When we take time to stand back and reflect, it becomes clear that to address
almost every one of the major challenges facing our country our relationships
with Europe, America and the rest of the world; how we equip ourselves for
globalisation; the future direction of constitutional change; a modern view of
citizenship; the future of local government, ideas of localism; and, of course, our
community relations and multiculturalism and, since July 7th, the balance between
diversity and integration; even the shape of our public services you must have a
clear view of what being British means, what you value about being British and
what gives us purpose as a nation.

Being clear what Britishness means in a post-imperial world is essential if we are to

forge the best relationships with the developing world and in particular with Africa.

But take Europe also: there is no doubt that in the years after 1945, faced with
relative economic decline as well as the end of empire, Britain lost confidence in
itself and its role in the world and became so unsure about what a confident post-
imperial Britain could be that too many people defined the choice in Europe as
either total absorption or splendid isolation. And forgot that just as you could stand
for Britain while being part of NATO, you can stand for Britain and advance British
national interests as part of the European Union.

Let me also suggest that it is because that loss of confidence led too many to retreat
into the idea of Britain, Britain as little more than institutions that never changed
so for decades, for fear of losing our British identity, Britain did not face up to some
of the great constitutional questions, whether it be the second chamber, the
relationship of the legislative to the executive or the future of local government.

Take also the unity of the United Kingdom and its component parts. While we have
always been a country of different nations and thus of plural identities a
Welshman can be Welsh and British, just as a Cornishman or woman is Cornish,
English and British - and may be Muslim, Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean, Cornish,
English and British there is always a risk that, when people are insecure, they
retreat into more exclusive identities rooted in 19th century conceptions of blood,
race and territory when instead, we the British people should be able to gain great
strength from celebrating a British identity which is bigger than the sum of its parts
 43

and a union that is strong because of the values we share and because of the way
these values are expressed through our history and our institutions.

And take the most recent illustration of what challenges us to be more explicit about
Britishness: the debate about asylum and immigration and about multiculturalism
and inclusion, issues that are particularly potent because in a fast changing world
people who are insecure need to be rooted. Here the question is essentially whether
our national identity is defined by values we share in common or just by race and
ethnicity a definition that would leave our country at risk of relapsing into a
wrongheaded 'cricket test' of loyalty.

Equally, while the British response to the events of July 7th was magnificent, we
have to face uncomfortable facts that there were British citizens, British born,
apparently integrated into our communities, who were prepared to maim and kill
fellow British citizens, irrespective of their religion and this must lead us to ask
how successful we have been in balancing the need for diversity with the obvious
requirements of integration in our society.

But I would argue that if we are clear about what underlies our Britishness and if we
are clear that shared values not colour, nor unchanging and unchangeable
institutions define what it means to be British in the modern world, we can be far
more ambitious in defining for our time the responsibilities of citizenship; far more
ambitious in forging a new and contemporary settlement of the relationship
between state, community and individual; and it is also easier too to address
difficult issues that sometimes come under the heading 'multiculturalism'
essentially how diverse cultures, which inevitably contain differences, can find the
essential common purpose without which no society can flourish.

So Britishness is not just an academic debate something just for the historians,
just for the commentators, just for the so-called chattering classes. Indeed in a
recent poll, as many as half of British people said they were worried that if we do
not promote Britishness we run a real risk of having a divided society.

And if we look to the future I want to argue that our success as Great Britain, our
ability to meet and master not just the challenges of a global economy, but also the
international, demographic, constitutional and social challenges ahead, and even
the security challenges, requires us to rediscover and build from our history and
apply in our time the shared values that bind us together and give us common
purpose. ()

David Cameron: It's time to stop being 'bashful about our

Britishness'
The Prime Minister says our 'squeamish' support of British values allowed the
alleged Trojan Horse plan to develop
 44

David Cameron Photo: Rex Features

By Oliver Duggan The Daily Telegraph 15 Jun 2014

David Cameron has said the UK is too bashful about our Britishness, allowing the
rise of the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to introduce strict Islamic rule in more
than 20 schools in Birmingham.
The Prime Minister launched a muscular defence of British values in response to
concerns that Islamic fundamentalists have infiltrated classrooms in the so-called
Trojan Horse plot.
Pledging to root out both violent and non-violent extremism, Mr Cameron said:
This is a matter of pride and patriotism.
Sometimes in this country we can be a bit squeamish about our achievements, even
bashful about our Britishness. We shouldnt be. We should be proud of what Britain
has done to defend freedom.
In recent years we have been in danger of sending out a worrying message: that if
you dont want to believe in democracy, thats fine; that if equality isnt your bag,
dont worry about it."
He continued: This has not just led to division, it has allowed extremism - of both
the violent and non-violent kind - to flourish. So I believe we need to be far more
muscular in promoting British values.
Writing in The Mail on Sunday, Mr Cameron described freedom, tolerance and
respect for the rule of law as British values as fundamental as the Union Flag,
football and fish and chips.
He added: We are saying it isnt enough simply to respect these values in schools -
were saying teachers should actively promote them. Theyre not optional; theyre
the core of what it is to live in Britain.
The Prime Ministers intervention comes after the schools watchdog Ofsted
published damning reports on the 21 Birmingham schools embroiled in the alleged
extremist plot.
Inspectors said that at some schools white women were referred to as prostitutes,
 45

boys and girls were segregated and strict Islamic rules were placed on seasonal
events.
The reports, which found five of the schools to be inadequate and placed them on
special measures, prompted Education Secretary Michael Gove to announce classes
on British values.
Mr Gove said this week that in the future all of Englands 20,000 primary and
secondary schools will have to promote British values of tolerance and fairness.
He said: We already require independent schools, academies and free schools to
respect British values.
Now we will consult on strengthening this standard further, so that all schools
actively promote British values.
From September all independent schools, academies and free schools, and all local
authority-run schools, will be required actively to promote fundamental British
values.
Talks have already started about how these new standards will be judged by Ofsted
inspectors, the Department for Education said.
Mr Cameron's comments on Saturday echo the new Culture Secretary's belief that
all immigrants must learn English and "respect our way of life".
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph last month, Sajid Javid said voters have
legitimate fears over excessive immigration and are justified in wanting Britain to
have more control over its borders.
He said: People also say, when immigrants do come to Britain, that they should
come to work, and make a contribution and that they should also respect our way of
life, and I agree with all of that. It means things like trying to learn English."

Bagehot

In praise of multiculturalism
Almost everyone now agrees that it has failed. Has it really?
Jun 14th 2007 | The Economist From the print edition

SWEAR WORDS, like everything else, are subject to fashion. Since the London bombings of
2005, a new obscenity has entered the lexicon, alongside the anatomical and the blasphemous:
multiculturalism. Once it connoted curry and the Notting Hill carnival; these days, when applied
to British politicians or their policies, multiculturalist is almost as derogatory a term as
socialist or neocon. Even more than they agree about most other things, the main political
 46

parties are united in their conviction that multiculturalism is a perniciously naive idea whose time
has gone, or ought never to have come at all.

Last week, for example, David Cameron, the Tory leader, warned an unenraptured audience of
Islamic leaders about the dangers of cultural separatism in Muslim communities. The creed of
multiculturalism, he allegedmeaning, roughly, a combination of indulgence and subsidy for
minorities and their institutionshad contributed to a deliberate weakening of our collective
identity. Two Labour ministers, meanwhile, suggested the creation of an annual holiday to help
cultivate a renewed sense of Britishness. A commission set up by the government last year, to
advise on segregation and extremism, recommended this week that less money be spent on
providing civic information in Urdu, Arabic and so on, and more on unmulticultural English
lessons. The need to rethink Britishness for a post-multicultural age is a regular theme for
Gordon Brown, the (Scottish) prime-minister-not-much-longer-in-waiting.

The shock of hearing a suicide-bomber's video testament delivered in a Yorkshire accent

hitherto more associated with cricket commentary than terrorismspelled the end for
multiculturalism. But even before the bombings the word was becoming a slur. Rioting by Asian
youths across northern England in the summer of 2001 forced curry-house multiculturalists to
confront the reality that government nonchalance had helped to engender. As well as the
burned cars, they saw fossilised social mores and the angry alienation of second- and third-
generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants, some of whom profess more allegiance to
the global umma than to Britain.

All that is real, tragic and terrifying, and becomes more so with every blood-curdling terrorist plot
that British police uncover. All the same, poor, deplored multiculturalism has been much less
bad than its many detractors now claim.

There are three reasons why the legions of anti-multiculturalists are wrong. First, left to their
own devices many immigrants to Britain have prospered. Indians and some other minorities do
better than whites in schools. There are many types of British Muslims, and some of them are
moving up and out. The 2005 bombers, it now seems, were shaped and motivated as much by
strife within Muslim communitiesfanatical Islamism serving as a perverse form of
intergenerational rebellionas by schisms between Muslims and wider British society. Nor have
immigration and multiculturalism led to so very much restlessness among the natives. The
nasty, if clownish, British National Party has occasionally picked up the odd council seat, but it is
a piffling force compared with far-right outfits elsewhere in Europe.

Second, multiculturalism's detractors tend to concentrate on the easy targets. It is plainly true,
for example, that Britain should anathemise egregious practices such as forced marriage or
honour killing. That government commission and others are right to emphasise English
lessons, especially for women, since an inability to speak it harms their children's prospects as
well as their own. The commission is right again to imply that too much funding has historically
and divisively been offered to community groups that cater to only one ethnicity or religion. (The
 47

commission also advocated better cultural preparation for new arrivals, for example to help
them understand the British philosophy of queuing and thus avoid ruckuses at bus-stops and
post offices.) But less tends to be said about what, in the end, are the most important
determinants of segregation, namely housing and education. Multicultural policiesletting
people, by and large, live and educate their children where they likemay have inadvertently
created neighbourhoods and schools in which almost every face is the same colour. But as well
as being illiberal, most of the alternatives would probably create more trouble and anger than
they prevent.

Americans in glass houses

Finallyand for all the disparaging talk about Londonistan, capital of Eurabiaother countries,
including those where the disparagement of multiculturalism is sharpest, have less to teach
Britain about integration than is often assumed. That is partly because they have failures too,
and partly because their circumstances are too different to be meaningfully compared. Mr
Cameron talked admiringly about the American solidarity embodied in the pledge of allegiance
and Mount Rushmore. Yet in Chicago and elsewhere, black Americans are more ghettoised
than any minority is anywhere in Britain (they also intermarry less than blacks in Britain).
Slavery, of course, makes black Americans a special casebut so are any number of British
Muslims. Many are refugees; others are from families who migrated to the old imperial
motherland from backward parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh, to work in British factories that
subsequently closed. Many of their American counterparts may indeed stick the Stars and
Stripes on their front lawn as devoutly as do other hyphenated Americans; but, apart from their
faith, they may not have much in common with the Muslims of Burnley or Oldham.

The vogue for promoting a new, inclusive Britishness is well-intentioned, but probably doomed.
National identities cannot be confectedand besides, the British already have one. Privacy and
freedom are two of its nicer components, and multiculturalism, for all its failings, has been a fine
expression of it.

Mohammed the Brit

By ROGER COHEN The New York Times January 13, 2011

LONDON Goodbye Jack Smith, hello Mohammed Malik, model British subject.
Mohammed, in its various spellings, is now the favorite name for newborn boys in the
United Kingdom, edging out Oliver. Those named for the Prophet of Islam ride the Clapham
omnibus. Say Luton or Bradford, and the vision that leaps is that of the alienated Muslim
radicalized by jihadist teaching and ready like the Luton-incubated Stockholm bomber
 48

Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly to blow himself up to kill the Western infidel. The
London bombers of July 7, 2005, also set out from Luton.

These are potent images. Exclusion exists; its other face is danger. But so does a particular
British elasticity that registers Mohammed and shrugs. Having lived in France and
Germany, Im struck on returning to Britain after 30 years not by the hard lines discarding
immigrant Muslim communities as in those countries, but by the relative fluidity that
produces Faisal Islam, economic editor of the influential Channel 4 News, or Sajid Javid, a
bus drivers son and Tory MP.

British identity has proved more capacious than French or German, perhaps because, even
before the legacy of empire, it had to absorb the English, the Scottish and the Welsh (as well
as fail to absorb the majority of the Irish.) The variegated texture of London projects full
of immigrants hard by upscale housing stands in stark contrast to ghettoized Paris.

Ive been listening to a BBC Radio 4 series how polarized America would benefit from a
national broadcaster of this quality! called Five Guys named Mohammed, conceived to
mark the names first-place surge. The programs are a good antidote to the simplistic
caricature that conflates Muslim with threat, and a useful barometer of an integration that is
uneven, certainly, but ongoing.

Overall, these Mohammeds see themselves as British citizens, not Muslims in the United
Kingdom. Their universes may be distinct, as in attitudes to marriage, but distinct in a way
that, at best, complements rather than confronts. Theres an upward mobility and optimism
that is much higher than in continental Europe, said Muddassar Ahmed, a 27-year-old
college dropout and chief executive of Unitas, a public relations firm. Ahmed is involved in
the drafting of a letter by 50 British Muslim scholars denouncing Malik Qadri, the 26-year-
old killer of Salman Taseer, the Punjab governor assassinated this month for denouncing
Pakistans draconian blasphemy laws that prescribe the death sentence for anyone insulting
Islam.

In this context, the readiness of European Muslims, many bearing the Prophets name, to
stand up for values of free speech assumes bridge-building importance. It reflects the
experience of faith as practiced within a modern secular society.

Those bridges do not come easily. Britain has been riled in recent weeks by the conviction
of Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, the ringleaders of a gang that raped and
sexually abused several white girls aged between 12 and 18 in Derby.

The reaction of Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, was to say a problem exists with
Pakistani heritage men thinking it is O.K. to target white girls in this way. It was a neat
and explosive argument. Vigorous debate has ensued. Racial slur? Courageous
frankness? I dont think Straws argument stands up to scrutiny of overall sex-crime
patterns, but I do think Britains Muslim community needs to take a hard look at repressive
attitudes toward women. The debate is salutary.

Theres a Mohammed in fact there are many in Britains future. Olivers prospects
look more dubious given the ties between the names popularity and the heady success of
the chef Jamie Oliver but thats another story of positive British change.
 49

The British

By Benjamin Zephaniah

Take some Picts, Celts and Silures

And let them settle,
Then overrun them with Roman conquerors.

Remove the Romans after approximately 400 years

Add lots of Norman French to some
Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings, then stir vigorously.

Mix some hot Chileans, cool Jamaicans, Dominicans,

Trinidadians and Bajans with some Ethiopians, Chinese,
Vietnamese and Sudanese.

Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians

And Pakistanis,
Combine with some Guyanese
And turn up the heat.

Sprinkle some fresh Indians, Malaysians, Bosnians,

Iraqis and Bangladeshis together with some
Afghans, Spanish, Turkish, Kurdish, Japanese
And Palestinians
Then add to the melting pot.

Leave the ingredients to simmer.

As they mix and blend allow their languages to flourish

Binding them together with English.

Allow time to be cool.

Add some unity, understanding, and respect for the future,

Serve with justice
And enjoy.

Note: All the ingredients are equally important. Treating one ingredient better than
another will leave a bitter unpleasant taste.

Warning: An unequal spread of justice will damage the people and cause pain. Give
justice and equality to all.
 50

The all-new British citizenship test take the quiz

The new citizenship test for aspiring Britons, intended to place more emphasis on
British history and achievements than previous versions comes into force this week.
Take the sample questions below and see whether you score the 75% necessary to
pass

theguardian.com, Tuesday 26 March 2013 07.00 GMT

Are you British enough to pass the all-new citizenship test?Haut du formulaire

1.Which landmark is a prehistoric monument which still stands in the English

county of Wiltshire?
1. Stonehenge
2. Hadrians Wall
3. Offas Dyke
4. Fountains Abbey

2.What is the name of the admiral who died in a sea battle in 1805 and has a
monument in Trafalgar Square, London?
5. Cook
6. Drake
7. Nelson
8. Raleigh

3.In 1801, a new version of the official flag of the United Kingdom was
created. What is it often called?
9. British standard
10. Royal banner
11. St George cross
12. Union jack

4.Who is the patron saint of Scotland?

13. St Andrew
14. St David
 51

15. St George
16. St Patrick

5.What flower is traditionally worn by people on Remembrance Day?

17. Poppy
18. Lily
19. Daffodil
20. Iris

6.Which of these sporting events was hosted in London in 2012?

21. Commonwealth Games
22. Cricket World Cup
23. European Football Championship
24. Paralympic Games

7.At her jubilee in 2012, how many years as queen did Queen Elizabeth II
celebrate?
25. 25
26. 40
27. 50
28. 60

8.The second largest party in the House of Commons is usually known by

what name?
29. Senate
30. Opposition
31. Lords
32. The other side

9.From what age can you be asked to serve on a jury?

33. 16
34. 18
35. 21
36. 25

10.What is the title given to the person who chairs the debates in the House of
Commons?
37. Chairman
 52

38. Speaker
39. Leader of the House
40. Prime minister

2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
reserved.

Wednesday 8 August 2012

Leading article: The welcome return of the Union Jack

The flag has been rescued from the connotations of lost Empire or unpopular
Union

An abiding image of the Olympic Games will be the fluttering frenzy of the red, white and
blue of the Union Jack. Spectators have waved it, medal-winning competitors have draped
themselves in it, and Britons everywhere have displayed it on dresses and suits, shirts and
tablecloths, plastic bowler hats and fingernails. And, of course, it was there in the parachute
as our 86-year-old sovereign appeared to leap from a helicopter at the Opening Ceremony.
Just as the Cross of St George was reclaimed from the grip of far-right political extremists,
so the Union Jack has been rescued from the old connotations of vanished Empire and has
become a vibrant, colourful symbol of contemporary British identity.
 53

There is politics to this, as Gordon Brown, that great enthusiast for a new definition of
Britishness, knew. One of his first acts on becoming Prime Minister in 2007 was to decree
that the Union Jack should be flown more often from government buildings. Fast-forward to
the flag-waving Olympic crowds, and it is Scotland's First Minister who will be somewhat
disconsolate. Alex Salmond was trying to use the Games for his own brand of nationalism
before they began. Even before champion cyclist Sir Chris Hoy won his spectacular sixth
gold medal yesterday, Mr Salmond had sent him a message of congratulation for being
chosen as the flag-bearer for Team GB but without mentioning the team by name. Indeed,
he even, somewhat bizarrely, coined the phrase "Scolympians" in an attempt to stop millions
of Scots cheering on a team that represents the Union. It did not work, however. Instead,
Scots debated whether his neologism sounded more like a nasty skin disease or a race of
alien villains from Star Trek.

As enthusiasm for the Games has mounted even Mr Salmond's nationalist cabinet members
have bowed to common sense and disregarded the rule to not mention the British team.
Quite right, too. The Union Jack which, in its current form, dates from the 1800 Act of
Union superimposes all four members' national flags as a representation of unity that
leaves the symbols of the individual countries intact. Being comfortable with the concept of
a dual identity lies at the heart of Britishness, as epitomised by Scotland's Andy Murray's
gold-medal-winning singles triumph which warmed the heart of the nation.

Some years ago, Murray irritated English commentators with an off-the-cuff comment about
supporting "anyone but England" when it came to football. Yet Murray couldn't have been
more British the day he became the Olympic tennis champion, wrapping a Union Jack
around his shoulders. He obviously cherished his roots, but he was proud of representing his
country, he said, shrugging off any previous patriotism row. He even sang along to at least
some of "God Save the Queen".

British athletes winning gold medals in the Olympics will irrational though it may seem
be a boost for unity when and if Mr Salmond offers Scots a vote on independence. Indeed, a
new YouGov poll in The Scotsman suggests that support for independence has fallen by
three points to just 30 per cent, with 54 per cent preferring to remain joined with the rest of
the UK.

Political moods can, of course, be ephemeral. But the spirit has changed in a way which is
bad news for Mr Salmond. In the past, the arguments in favour of unity had seemed merely
economic. All the arguments on emotional identity belonged with the pro-independence
camp. The scenes of patriotic jubilation that have accompanied each Team GB win suggest
something different. There is emotion too in the idea of a nation united. A tide may have
turned.

Dear Mr Gove: what's so 'British' about your 'British values'?

Let's go through your checklist for schools and really examine whether there is anything
British about it

The Guardian, 1st July 2014

 54

British values are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and
tolerance towards those of different faiths, according to Michael Gove. Photograph: John
Macdougall/AFP/Getty Images

I see you're going to require all your schools to teach British values. If you think you're
going to have the support of all parents in this project, you'll have to count me out.Your
checklist of British values is: "Democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect,
and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs." I can't attach the adjective "British" to
these. In fact, I find it parochial, patronising and arrogant that you think it's appropriate or
right to do so.

I've heard the weasel explanation: you're not saying that these are uniquely or specially
British, simply that they are ones that British society abides by. But that's not how we use
adjectives, is it? We use adjectives to describe, modify, define, colour and infuse the noun
that follows it. It's clear from David Cameron's absurd words about the Magna Carta (which
handed power to warring despotic princelings) that your government would like us to think
that there is indeed something specially British about the items on the checklist.

So let's go through it. I like democracy. I don't think you do. You've replaced the democracy
of local government control over schools with the marketplace.A tiny number of speculators,
debt-sellers, rate-fixers and gamblers have altered the lives of millions of people. No one
voted them in. No one can vote them out. We have an unelected head of state and an
unelected second chamber.

We have some democracy but it's absurd to claim that the bit we have is solely or uniquely
British. The great struggles by working people to wrest some power from your predecessors
were often informed by events in France and America, while British women were still
fighting for the right to vote as some others abroad already had it. I am struggling to imagine
what fibs you would like to impose on schools requiring teachers to imply that democracy is
British.

Excuse me for sniggering about the "rule of law" requirement. Didn't your leader flout the
law last week over his statement on the Coulson affair, made before the trial was over? Don't
we know that Tony Blair will never have to face a court of law in which the legality of the
invasion of Iraq will be tested? Again, when it comes to the history of law as enacted in this
country, shouldn't it be described as having evolved out of many cultures including, say,
 55

Jewish, Greek, Roman, Christian and, in the modern era, "western"? Don't you folks in
parliament talk about "European" laws?

On to liberty well, in an era of the never-ending soup-kitchen queue and rising child
poverty there's no better time to be informed on this matter by the non-British writer Anatole
France, who praised: "The majestic equality of laws which forbids rich and poor alike to
sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread." I daren't think of the guidelines you
will issue requiring teachers to pretend that liberty without equality is liberty.

Mutual respect? Before you put that one out, perhaps you should spend some time talking to
the families of people who have lost loved ones while in the care, "protection" or custody of
HM government. In the guidelines to teachers, perhaps you can explain why this mutual
respect doesn't seem to result in anyone being prosecuted for violating the fundamental part
of "respect": the right to live.

Tolerance is a good idea but practised unevenly across Britain, surely. Still on the statute
books we have the requirement that all schools in England and Wales should have a daily
assembly that is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". Most parents do not
know that they can take their children out of this assembly and out of any RE lessons.

Many of those who do know feel that to opt out would cause difficulties for their child and
the school. And we should remember, surely, that our unelected head of state is head of the
Church of England, which is "tolerant" even as its official status and role dominates the
public interpretation of values. To tell the truth, I don't know how we can have tolerance
while our state schools are required by law to favour one faith.

So, I look forward to these guidelines on British values, if only for the fact that it will give
our children the chance to put them up for scrutiny. By the way, did it ever occur to you to
call them just: "Values"?

Yours, Michael Rosen

How Scotland will lead the world

The Economist Nov 17th 2011 | from The World In 2012 print edition

After the Second World War ended the United Nations comprised 51 independent nations.
Today that figure has risen to 193. Globalisation has gone hand in hand with a growing
desire for nations to take responsibility for their own affairs and make a full contribution as a
member of that global family of nations. I write as the leader of a nation which is not yet a
member of that family in its own right, but I lead a government which aspires to that status.
Scotland will hold a referendum on independence before the end of this parliament in 2016,
 56

and in 2012 we will lay the foundations by wielding the powers we currently have to boost
economic growth.

Global focus may be on the BRIC nations, but there is another success story which needs to
be told: that of smaller states championing change. In Spain the dynamic regions are
Catalonia and the Basque country, which enjoy degrees of fiscal autonomy from Madrid. To
the north of Europe the Danes thrive, the Norwegians are world-beaters while Finland excels
in many global indicators. It is not the size of a nation that is important, but the size of its
ambition and of the contribution it can make to the world

Scotland on its path to independence is another example of smaller-nation success: with our
limited powers we have already set a more dynamic pace than the rest of the United
Kingdom. Lest anyone doubt the capacity of smaller nations to influence the global future, a
former secretary-general of the UN, Kofi Annan, has cited Scotlands history in science,
technology and economics as proof that our nation has a leading role to play in tackling
some of the biggest challenges of our age.

Climate change is one such challengeand Scotland has passed world-leading climate-
change legislation, with a target of reducing carbon emissions by 42% by 2020. That is
ambitious but achievable, and it will hopefully act as a spur for other nations, large and
small, to act now for a sustainable future. The climate-change agenda goes together with the
drive to find more sustainable ways of producing the energy we need, and again Scotland is
forging ahead in developing the clean renewable-energy technology which can power the
global future. We have set ourselves another challenging but achievable target by aiming to
produce the equivalent of all our own electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020
and around as much again from other sources. That will allow Scotland to become a
significant exporter of energy to our European neighbours.

It is possible because we have a huge share of the whole continents green-energy potential.
Recent investment in Scotlands renewable sector by multinational companies is testament
to the scale of that potential, and 2012 will see us redouble our efforts. Energy security and
the safe, sustainable delivery of power is one of the biggest issues of our time, and Scotland
is already playing a leading role in securing that prize.

These new technologies, along with our strengths in areas like life sciences and finance, give
Scotland the opportunity to continue to carve the distinctive contribution our nation has
made over the centuries, from our earliest days as an independent trading nation, through the
Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th century and right up to the present day. Today, more
patents are issued to Scottish universities than to any other nation in the world, as measured
per head. It was one of those Scottish Enlightenment figures, Adam Smith, who observed
that economic progress must, inevitably, be accompanied by social progressand that holds
as true today as it did then, giving us the hope that globalisation can indeed transform the
world for the better.

The age of empires is long gone; even the cold war is now a subject for the history books,
and the old certainties which once underpinned international relations have unravelled. In
their place we have a more complex, more uncertain world, but also one which is more alive
with possibilities for positive change than ever before, where more nations than ever
exercise independence in an interdependent world, and where Scotland can and will be a
force for good.
 57

That includes playing a full part in the European Union, whose last big expansion in 2004
saw the admission of ten new statessix of them smaller than Scotland, and six of which
had become independent since 1990.

As the United Kingdoms prime minister, David Cameron, conceded in last years edition of
this publication, the UK is saddled with a large deficit, so size clearly offers no protection or
immunity from the vagaries of the global economy. Instead, the countries which appear best
equipped to deal with such conditions are those that are nimble and fleet-footed enough to
adapt quickly to change. It is not the size of a nation that is important, but the size of its
ambition and of the contribution it can make to the world. Scotland is ready to meet that
challenge.

Independence could revitalise Scotland and England too

Gerry Hassan guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 January 2012

The debate on independence versus the union has already seen battlelines drawn, with the
political camps anticipating the sound and fury to come. But Scottish independence and self-
government are not about an old-fashioned nationalist movement drawing from reactionary
ideas, but a profoundly modern, pro-European, centre-left politics. A powerful, plausible,
non-partisan case can be made for why independence would be a power for good for
Scotland and the rest of the UK. First, Scotland is a relatively rich nation which, when we
factor in the 91% North Sea oil monies, could be one of the most prosperous countries in the
world. Independence would allow Scotland to have proper debates about how to nurture
business and entrepreneurs with a different set of ethics from the spiv capitalism of the City
of London, and to take considered, long-term decisions about investment and public
priorities.

Despite its wealth, Scotland also hosts the worst concentrations of poverty in western
Europe and the most shocking and devastating health inequalities of anywhere.
Independence could bring a sense of mission and purpose to tackling what is Scotland's real
shame, the poverty, exclusion and dislocation for hundreds of thousands in a nation that
prides itself on its egalitarian character. Public services north of the border increasingly see
themselves as inhabiting a different universe from down south. Scottish services embody
principles of equity, collaboration and simple lines of accountability, and Scotland wants to
preserve this distinctive approach and resist the encroachment of public sector "reform"
agenda seen in the English NHS and schools.

Then there is the Scotland of the public sphere. How a nation represents itself and is
represented is a crucial part of any democracy. At the moment we have an unsatisfactory
situation whereby large parts of the media such as the BBC are disconnected from
contemporary Scotland, not broadcasting, commissioning or portraying the many cultures
and voices of the nation. This would change dramatically if independence occurred, aiding a
new ecology of the public sphere.

Independence would also give Scotland a greater voice internationally, with the prospect of
a warm welcome from friends and neighbours in the EU who are fed up with UK hectoring.
 58

All of this not only changes Scotland, but England too. One argument used to keep Scotland
in the union is the pessimism of modern English progressives who plead not to be left with
perpetual Tory governments.

This is a false reading of history. In postwar elections the Tories have only won a majority
of the English vote once in 1955, the same year they won a majority in Scotland. English
democratisation would be aided by Scottish self-government, allowing radicals on both sides
of the border to oppose the current way British politics does business. Here lies the prospect
of wider cultural transformation and change. Over recent decades a debilitating avoidance of
responsibility has grown, of blaming others whether it be Labour or Tories, or Westminster
in general. Breaking that vicious cycle of gripe and grievance is only possible by embracing
greater responsibility at every level of society.

What have we to be scared of? Independence promises a nation less "Scotland the Brave"
and more "Scotland the confident". It allows England the chance to find its democratic
voice. And it enables those of us who fear the rightward lurch of politics and the debasement
of public discourse to make alliances against the institutional capture of the British state by
corporate interests.

Most of all, Scottish independence is about maturing and growing up, about people
recognising that they have the power to shape their collective future. It is a powerful,
positive story, and the only people who should feel threatened are the narrow elites who gain
so much from the status quo. A post-British politics would allow for a very different kind of
Britain and Britishness to arise. That's why large elements of Scottish society and opinion
are galvanised and enthused by this historic possibility.

Ayell be back
Scotlands pro-independence movement will outlive next months referendum
Aug 16th 2014 | BATHGATE AND EDINBURGH | From the print edition

DAVID CAMERON reckons people should think jolly hard before they vote in Scotlands
upcoming referendum on independence. As he and other unionist leaders often argue, the
result on September 18th will be irreversible and binding. Should Scots leave the United
Kingdom and then change their minds, they will just have to lump it. Such entreaties seem to be
working: the no to independence campaign has a comfortable poll lead.
 59

A second warning lurks between the lines: if they vote no, Scots had better accept that
outcome, too. There should be no neverendum; the term applied to Quebecs decades-long
deliberations over breaking from Canada. Whether or not this message will go heeded is less
certain. The reason can be found in the comparison between the yes and no campaigns.

In Bathgate, a commuter town in West Lothian, a huddle in a windswept car park exemplifies
Better Together, the official pro-union outfit. These activists are motivated not by grand ideals
but a grudging acceptance that the referendum campaign needs to be fought and won (the
secessionist Scottish National Party (SNP) called the vote after winning an unexpected majority
in the Scottish Parliament in 2011). Yes inspires the heart, no the head, argues Harry
Cartmill, counting out leaflets. Like many, he is also active in the unionist Labour Party. The drill
here is as in election years: canvass swing voters by phone or in person, constantly refine the
database and hit targets set by headquarters. They may not be terribly impassioned, but
unionists are disciplined, dutiful and experienced.

If the no campaign is a machine, yes is a carnival. Though closest to the SNP, it extends
farther beyond party politics than Better Together. Yes Scotland, the official campaign, provides
local groups with materials but otherwise lets them do what they want. Many canvass, but
others prefer street stalls, film screenings and pop-up independence cafes (see chart).
Campaigners have used crowdfunding websites to raise money for yet bolder projects. In
Dundee they converted an old fire engine into a battle bus, the Spirit of Independence. This is
understandable: most Scots say they do not support independence; Yes Scotland has to win
people over, not just induce them to vote.

Several larger nationalist initiatives have developed lives of their own. National Collective, a
gathering of creative types, has toured Scotland putting on pro-independence arts and music
festivals collectively known as Yestival. Other bodies, like Common Weal and Radical
Independence, are marshalling idealistic ideas for an independent Scotland and connecting the
yes campaign to other causes, like nuclear disarmament. From August 18th a group of these
sub-campaigns will hold daily press conferences.

A pro-independence gig in a muggy Edinburgh basement typifies this colourful scene. Sporting
political badges and bags marked Another Scotland is Possible, the crowd roars with laughter
as a series of lefty comedians lampoon the no camp. Better Together, deadpans Keir
McAllister, even sounds creepy: the sort of thing your psycho ex would say once theyd locked
you up in a dungeon with gaffer tape around your mouth.

Colour benefits the yes campaign. It generates an infectious energy, as some senior unionists
quietly admit. Nationalists are like religious believers, whispers one, both mocking and
impressed. And energy means the independence movement has more contact with voters. Two
recent polls showed that, by two to one, Scots consider Yes Scotland the more effective of the
campaigns. Another, by YouGov, suggests that nationalist campaigning had reached 65% of
voters by early August, compared with 54% for the unionists.
 60

But raucousness can also alarm the undecided. Yes Scotland may have a larger online
presence (including many more Facebook and Twitter followers), but this is polluted by cyber-
nationalists: bloggers who harass unionists, peddle conspiracy theories and generally
undermine the cause. In another unhelpful move, yes campaigners recently protested against
media bias outside BBC Scotland, part of Britains national broadcaster. The crowd cheered a
bearded kazoo player as he ranted: Choose the BBC as your enemy!

This spirited chaos may be making it harder to turn fizz into votes: the unionists poll lead has
budged little over the past year. Blair McDougall, director of Better Together, offers a related
explanation: his side is more focused and better at using its canvassing to direct the campaigns
messages effectively. Nevertheless, his opponents are confident that energy and numbers will
boost nationalist turnout on polling day. Canvassing consistently shows that yes voters are
more passionate in their views than no ones, claims Blair Jenkins, who runs Yes Scotland.

The distinction between the campaigns has a second, bigger implication. Most in Better
Together wish the referendum were not taking place. Successful or not, that campaign will fold
after September 18th. But the yes campaign is a movement. It has flushed blood into the
muscles of Scottish nationalism, giving it extensive reach beyond the staid SNP. Some
strategists believe that most Scots are for independence in principle (if not yet in practice). A
group of them will meet in late August to discuss next steps after the referendum.

If we lose, our anger will turn into determination, predicts Robin McAlpine, director of Common
Weal. He expects another referendum within five years if Scotland votes no. Whether people
move on is up to the nationalists, adds Mr McDougall at Better Together. Thus looms the
prospect of a neverendum. If unsuccessful, yes campaigners could import that decades-long
limbo to Britain.

Ulster loyalist leader warns flag protests are close to spiralling

out of control
Henry McDonald in Belfast The Observer, Saturday 8 December 2012 19.21 GMT

The leader of the Ulster Defence Association has warned that the union flag controversy at
Belfast city hall is in danger of spiralling out of control and threatening peace across
Northern Ireland. Jackie McDonald claimed that Protestant anger over the decision to stop
flying the union flag all the year round on top of the City Hall was also undermining his
position within Ulster loyalism.

McDonald said he was "gravely worried" that the leadership of loyalism "could be usurped"
as a result of the flag furore. He was speaking outside Belfast City Hall as 1,500 loyalists
gathered to protest over the council's decision to end the policy of flying the union flag
daily.

After the demonstration, which resulted in the closure of shops and a Christmas market, a
riot broke out in east Belfast when loyalists returning from the protest clashed with police.
One police officer was injured and taken to hospital.

The UDA leader denied that his organisation and the rival Ulster Volunteer Force were
orchestrating much of the violence and intimidation. "The chief constable would say that,
but the truth is this is a grassroots, spontaneous movement and no one knows where it is
going," he said.
 61

"I have been advocating within loyalism that we keep dialogue open with republicans but
after last week's decision people like me are being shouted down inside the loyalist
community. These politicians totally underestimated the reaction to taking down the union
flag from the City Hall. When Sinn Fein councillor Jim McVeigh says, 'Taking down this
flag is another step towards a united Ireland', there are a lot of people in my community who
believe that. This is a very dangerous period and I don't know where it is going to take us. I
am very worried about this situation," he said.

Assistant chief constable Will Kerr, of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, said: "Loyalist
paramilitary groups are now actively involved in orchestrating this disorder and we've seen
that in various parts of the greater Belfast area over the course of the last couple of nights."

He said members of both the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Volunteer Force
(UVF) had been involved. Loyalist extremists have continued to target the cross-community
Alliance Party whose compromise motion on Belfast city council led to the flying of the
union flag on 17 designated days throughout the year.

The envoy between the Irish government and the UVF during the peace process has also
warned that the flags dispute may be exploited by extremist anti-ceasefire elements in
loyalism.

Chris Hudson, the Dublin-born trade unionist and now a Presbyterian minister, has been
holding talks with the UVF aimed at defusing tensions. Hudson said: "I don't believe the
militant anger on the street is a long-term strategy but it poses a serious danger in that it
attracts violent and political sectarian people."
 62

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND

PARTIES

What is the UK Constitution?

Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure
of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations
with each other and with the states citizens. Britain is unusual in that it has an
unwritten constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal
document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state
works. Britains lack of a written constitution can be explained by its history. In other
countries, many of whom have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been
necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state
institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. By
contrast, the British Constitution has evolved over a long period of time, reflecting the
relative stability of the British polity. It has never been thought necessary to
consolidate the basic building blocks of this order in Britain. What Britain has instead
is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties
which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more
accurate to refer to Britains constitution as an uncodified constitution, rather than an
unwritten one.
It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words:
What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the
power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary
sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution.
This is the ultimate lawmaking power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to
create or abolish any law. Other core principles of the British Constitution are often
 63

thought to include the rule of law, the separation of government into executive,
legislative, and judicial branches, and the existence of a unitary state, meaning ultimate
power is held by the centre the sovereign Westminster Parliament. However, some
of these principles are mythical (the British constitution may be better understood as
involving the fusion of executive and legislature) or in doubt (Parliamentary
sovereignty may now be called in question given the combined impact of Europe,
devolution, the Courts, and human rights).

The British Constitution is derived from a number of sources. Statutes are laws passed
by Parliament and are generally the highest form of law. Conventions are unwritten
practices which have developed over time and regulate the business of governing.
Common law is law developed by the courts and judges through cases. The UKs
accession to the European Communities Act 1972 has meant that European law is
increasingly impacting on the British Constitution. The UK is also subject to
international law. Finally, because the British Constitution cannot be found in any
single document, politicians and lawyers have relied on constitutional authorities to
locate and understand the constitution.
An uncodified constitution creates two problems. First, it makes it difficult to know
what the state of the constitution actually is. Second, it suggests that it is easier to make
changes to the UK Constitution than in countries with written constitutions, because
the latter have documents with a higher law status against which ordinary statute law
and government action can be tested, and are only amendable via elaborate
procedures. The flexibility of the UK constitution is evident from the large number of
constitutional reforms since 1997, including the abolition of the majority of hereditary
peers in the House of Lords, the introduction of codified rights of individuals for the the
first time in the Human Rights Act 1998, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. Arguably, however, these recent constitutional reforms may have
made the constitution less flexible in some respects: it is debatable, for instance,
whether the devolution settlements could ever be repealed.
For an overview of the UK system of government visit Directgov. The UK Cabinet
Manual also provides an outline of British government, albeit from the Executive's
point of view.
For in depth notes on a range of constitutional issues see the House of Commons
Library.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/whatis/uk-constitution
 64

BILL OF RIGHTS
1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling
the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at
Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people
of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one
thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties,
then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and
princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration
in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil
counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert
and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws
and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and
prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from
concurring to the said assumed power;
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for
erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for
other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace
without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same
time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable
only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been
returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for
high treason which were not freeholders;
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to
elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have been imposed;
And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any
conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be
levied;
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and
freedom of this realm;
 65

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and
the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath
pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from
popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties,
cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to
represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at
Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six
hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that
their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon
which letters elections having been accordingly made;

THE MONARCHY

Seen and thus believed: Britain falls back in love with its dutiful, tireless
monarch

Jan 26th 2012 by Bagehot The Economist

TO his slight surprise Bagehot was recently asked to review all the new biographies of
Queen Elizabeth II being published to mark 2012, her 60th year on the throne. It was a bit
like asking an agnostic to be Vatican correspondent, but five books, 1500 pages and a lot of
corgi anecdotes later, I finally surfaced. At moments it felt a bit like eating a banquet
entirely consisting of cakes and pudding, with Turkish delight to finish. But in amongst the
cloying fluff there were some good stories. It was striking to be reminded how shabby and
poor war-broken Britain was.

BEING on show is a serious business for Queen Elizabeth II who acceded to the throne 60
years ago next month. On royal tours and walkabouts, she is careful to choose bright colours
and small-brimmed hats, glides through crowds like a liner and seemingly never tires. Oh
 66

look! Shes keeled over again, the queen once noted at a stifling-hot palace reception,
spotting her then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, pale and slumped in a chair. On several
occasions she has been urged to retreat behind more obtrusive layers of security. Each time
she has refused with something between a joke and a motto for her six decades on the
throne, telling aides: I have to be seen to be believed.

Yet for the 85-year-old monarch, belief requires distance, too. Younger generations of royals
have kissed and told. But the queen has never given an interview. Though some of her 12
British prime ministers were convinced they forged a special bond during weekly audiences
with their sovereign, her personal politics remain unknown.

Over the years, various aristocrats, cousins and horse-racing grandees have been more or
less plausibly identified as her friends. Even among such intimates, boundaries are observed,
for fear of crossing an unseen line and triggering a stare of blank, silent rebuke. She is
neveryou knownot the Queen, advises an unnamed friend, quoted in the opening lines
of a new biography by the BBCs senior political interviewer, Andrew Marr.

Yet as a constitutional monarch, ruling with the tacit consent of the majority, she is not the
only judge of the trade-off between necessary display and indispensable discretion. The
public have a say as well. Some of the queens closest brushes with disaster have involved a
lack of visibility, most painfully in 1997 when she remained in Scotland with the royal
family after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. She only returned to London after pleas
from her new, young prime minister, Tony Blair (and lynch-mob demands to Show Us You
Care from the tabloids).

The double nature of the queenan unusually private woman with extraordinary public
dutiesposes a test for all who try to write about her. Including Mr Marrs book, five new
biographies have been prepared for 2012, the queens diamond jubilee year. Mr Marr, a
former political editor of the BBC and author of some shrewd books on modern Britain, sets
himself an ambitious task: to explain what the queens role and position tell us about her
subjects. It is an admiring portrait, of an unfashionably dutiful monarch who in her weekly
audiences offers prime ministers what he calls a kind of higher therapya chance to share
anxieties or explanations which will never leak, with someone who has read almost every
state secret of the past 60 years (and so has heard worse before). He describes the queen and
her strong sense of vocation, as a monarch God-called to give her life to her people as a
sacrifice. Only by understanding that calling, he writes, can the queen be understood.

In perhaps a claim too far, Mr Marr emphasises the comfort offered by the queen as a
symbol of the continuing British state. By representing those who did not vote for the
current government or did not vote at all, she strengthens democracy, he suggests. It is a
clever thought, but may overstate the degree to which most Britons suffer from
constitutional angst. But a symbol she certainly is. And in modern Britaina restless,
exhibitionist placeMr Marrs Queen Elizabeth stands out for her discretion, and for
understanding that symbols are better off keeping mostly quiet. There is a lesson there for
her heir, the Prince of Wales.
 67

Royal equality act will end succession of first born male - rather than
older sister
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent The Guardian, Friday 28 October 2011

Commonwealth leaders will pledge to amend legislation dating back to the 17th century to allow
daughters of the monarch to take precedence over younger sons in the line of succession. David
Cameron will hail the agreement of the 16 Queen's realms, the Commonwealth countries where the
Queen serves as head of state, to amend "outdated" rules that also prevent a potential monarch from
marrying a Catholic. The prime minister will introduce legislation in Britain before the next general
election to ensure that the changes will apply to any children of the Duke and Duchess of
Cambridge. Officials say the changes will apply even if a child is born before the new legislation is
passed. Speaking before the opening of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Perth,
where the agreement will be sealed, Cameron said: "These rules are outdated and need to change."

In a meeting in Perth this morning, to be chaired by the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, the
leaders of the 16 Queen's realms will agree to amend rules that currently say: An elder daughter
should be placed behind a younger son in the line of succession. The order of succession will in
future be determined by the order of birth. The immediate impact will place the Princess Royal, the
Queen's daughter, fourth in the line of succession behind the Prince of Wales and his two sons. At
the moment the princess is 10th. The Duke of York, who is fourth, will drop to eighth.

Anyone who marries a Roman Catholic is barred from succeeding to the crown. This will end.
The change will not affect the position of the monarch as the supreme governor of the Church of
England, because Catholics will still be barred from the throne. The Church of England will remain
as the established church.

Descendants of King George II need the monarch's consent to marry. This will be reformed.
Cameron will tell the meeting: "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an
elder daughter, simply because he is a man, just is not acceptable any more. " Nor does it make any
sense that a potential monarch can marry someone of any faith other than Catholic. "The thinking
behind these rules is wrong. That's why people have been talking about changing them for some
time. We need to get on and do it." The announcement in Perth comes after Cameron wrote last
month to the other leaders calling for change. Legislation will have to be introduced in Britain and
some of the other 15 realms to amend laws including the Bill of Rights 1688, the Act of Settlement
1700, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Coronation Oaths Act 1688.

Gordon Brown was keen to introduce the reforms but did not feel he could set aside enough
parliamentary time. Earlier this year Cameron played down the prospect of an imminent change in
the rules of royal succession, partly because of concerns that constitutional tinkering could revive the
campaign in Australia for it to become a republic. But Downing Street believes that the Queen's
diamond jubilee next year and the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in April show it
is time to "secure a breakthrough".

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, also supports the change. "If Prince William and Catherine
Middleton were to have a baby daughter as their first child, I think most people would think it fair
and normal that she would eventually become queen of our country," he said this year. Buckingham
Palace is understood to be supportive. One No 10 source said: "Downing Street has been working on
this for five years. Buckingham Palace will not have been taken by surprise. This will welcome the
crown into the modern age." The changes have to be introduced by all 16 realms at the same time.
Failure to amend the legislation in one or more could lead to a situation in which there were different
monarchs, possibly both from the House of Windsor, in different countries. Cameron has been
astonished that it has taken so long to amend such antiquated legislation. In 1955, when Anthony
Eden succeeded Winston Churchill, a civil service brief concluded that it was time for a change. The
 68

leaders' group will also debate a report recommending that homosexuality should be legalised across
the Commonwealth. Peter Tatchell, a gay , said last week that 40 Commonwealth countries still
criminalise homosexuality.

Is it correct to refer to the Queen of England?

There's a tendency, in the media and elsewhere, to refer to HM the Queen Elizabeth II
as "the Queen of England."

The problem is, she isn't. England isn't an independent country, and hasn't been for
over 300 years. The stage was set for that "new" status when Mary Queen of Scots' son,
King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) was crowned in March 1603. That day,
James became the king of England, Scotland and Ireland (which of course had not been
split into two back then). Since England "owned" Wales, he was Wales' leader, too.

In 1707, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England merged politically into
the Kingdom of Great Britain by way of an Act of Union. In 1800, Ireland had its own
Act of Union and joined in to form the United Kingdom. The split between the Republic
of Ireland and Northern Ireland occurred in 1922.

So Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, which consists of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. To call her
Queen of England is (a) inaccurate and (b) insulting to those in the other parts of the
United Kingdom, since doing so insinuates they are part of England. They're not.

Since the full name of the UK is a mouthful, and the "United Kingdomish Queen" would
be ridiculous, it's accurate and acceptable to refer to her Her Majesty as the British
Queen, Queen of the United Kingdom, HM Queen Elizabeth the Second or even just
Queen Elizabeth.

The last Queen of England was Queen Elizabeth I, in the 17th century.

http://www.examiner.com/article/british-royal-family-101-is-it-correct-to-refer-to-
the-queen-of-england 2/2

THE UK PARLIAMENT - WESTMINSTER

 69

http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit
 70

UK political parties list

Here is a roundup of how to follow our coverage of the main political parties.
The Daily Telegraph 07 Apr 2010

Conservative Party

The latest news and comment on Prime Minister David Cameron and his ruling Conservative
Party.

Liberal Democrat Party

Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat Party is in a coalition government with the Conservatives

Labour Party

The latest news from the Labour Party, now fronted by Ed Miliband, as it adapts to life in
Opposition.

UK Independence Party

Latest on UKIP and its leader, Nigel Farage.

Green Party

Latest from the Green Party and its sole British MP Caroline Lucas

Scottish National Party

 71

The Scottish National Party is led by Alex Salmond.

Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru is led by Ieuan Wyn Jones.

British National Party

Latest on the BNP and its leader Nick Griffin.

2010 GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

UK - NATIONAL SEATS AT A GLANCE

326 seats to win

SEATS CHANGE

Conservative 307 +97

Labour 258 -91

Liberal Democrat 57 -5

Democratic Unionist Party 8 -1

Scottish National Party 6 0

Others 14 0

SHARE

1. CONSERVATIVES 36.1%
2. LABOUR 29.0%
3. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 23.0%
4. OTHERS 11.9%
 72

SWING

5% From LAB to CON

TURNOUT 65,1%

UK POLITICS
21 May 2014 Last updated at 21:33 GMT

Guide to the 2014 European and local elections

What's happening on Thursday?

There are local council elections in England and Northern Ireland - but the big one
this year is the European election on the same day. It is the only time outside of a
general election when all 46 million voters can take part. The European Parliament
is the only directly elected institution in the European Union. So this is your chance
to decide who represents you in Brussels and Strasbourg (Yes, they still shuttle
between the two parliament buildings at regular intervals).

How do I know if I can vote?

Most people should have received polling cards through the post. To be eligible to
vote, you had to be on the electoral register by 6 May. Anyone over 18 on 22 May
who is a British citizen living in the UK, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen living in
the UK, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland living in the UK, or an EU citizen living in
the UK can vote if there is a local election where they live. British citizens living
overseas can also vote in the European elections provided they have registered as
overseas electors. EU citizens living in the UK can only vote in the European
Parliament elections if they don't vote in their home member state.

How do I vote?

You can go to your nearest polling station on Thursday. It is normally a local school
or community centre - the location will be on your polling card. You do not need to
take the polling card with you in order to vote. A member of staff will give you a
ballot paper with a list of candidates and parties on it. Put a cross in the box next to
 73

the ones you want to vote for. The deadline has passed for applying for a postal
vote - if you did apply for one you can drop it off at the polling station. If you have a
specific, long-term reason that you can't vote in person, such as a disability or being
overseas, you can apply to allow someone to vote for you on the Electoral
Commission website. If you are suddenly incapacitated or taken ill, you can apply
to vote by proxy for medical reasons up until 5pm on polling day. Polling stations
are open between 7am and 10pm.

'Selfie' warning

The Electoral Commission is worried the current craze for smart phone self-
portraits, as demonstrated above by the prime minister, will threaten the secrecy of
the ballot. They have issued guidelines to staff at polling stations advising them
to discourage the taking of "selfies", or any other kind of photograph in the polling
station. There may be notices on the wall warning people about it. Taking a
photograph in a polling station is not a criminal offence in itself, but sharing of
information that appears on a ballot paper, even before it has been filled in, could
represent a breach of Section 66 of the Representation of the People's Act
1983, leading to a fine of up to 5,000, or a six months jail sentence. It all depends
on whether the photograph was shared with others and what is in it - but the
Electoral Commission is not taking any chances. "Given the risk that someone
taking a photo inside a polling station may be in breach of the law, whether
intentionally or not, our advice is that you should not allow photos to be taken inside
polling stations," says the guidance to staff. Tweeting pictures of a postal ballot is
also discouraged.

Why do the local elections matter?

They are a chance to decide who runs your local services - everything from refuse
collection to pavement potholes and children's services. The results can also send a
signal to the parties at Westminster with a year to go before the next general
election. There are elections in 161 councils in England and 11 in Northern
Ireland.

Why do the European elections matter?

It is often ignored by the British media, but the European Parliament has a growing
influence over our daily lives. It can not originate laws just revise or block legislation
from the unelected European Commission, but it has more power than it used to,
 74

particularly in areas like consumer protection, the environment - such as the

genetically modified crops German Greens are protesting against in the above
picture. Nobody wins the European elections - there are no government and
opposition benches like at Westminster. But the make-up of the new Parliament is
likely to have a decisive influence on the future direction of the EU - particularly if,
as expected, there is a large block of Eurosceptic MEPs. In the UK, the result can
have a big impact on a party's mood and their leader's prospects ahead of the 2015
general election. Check out their election broadcasts to get a feel for how they
are pitching it.

So how does the European voting system work, exactly?

Britain is one of eight countries - including Germany and France - to use a "closed
list" system. So you vote for a party, rather than an individual. The parties
themselves decide who goes on the candidate list for each of the 12 electoral
regions. The ones at the top stand the best chance of being elected. The way seats
are allocated within each European constituency uses the D'hondt system., which
is a form of proportional representation.

What happened last time?

The last European elections were in 2009. The Conservatives got the biggest UK
share of the vote, 27.7%, UKIP got 16.5%, Labour got 15.7%, the Lib Dems 13.7%,
the Green Party 8.6% and the BNP 6.2%.

What about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

In 2009 in Scotland the SNP got 29.1% of votes, Labour 20.8%, Conservatives
16.8%, Liberal Democrats 11.5%, Greens 7.2% and UKIP 5.2%. In Wales, the
stage is set for a fascinating contest. In 2009, four parties shared the spoils - with
one MEP each for Labour, the Conservatives, UKIP, and Plaid Cymru. Northern
Ireland is very different to the rest of the UK when it comes to the Euros. MEPs are
elected using the Single Transferable Vote system - there are no party lists and you
vote for a candidate by order of preference rather than a party. Ten candidates are
vying for three seats.

And the smaller parties?

Smaller parties love the European elections because since 1999 it has used
proportional representation. This year's crop of hopefuls include the English
 75

Democrats, which campaigns for English independence, and An Independence

From Europe, founded by former UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass, both of which are
running full slates of candidates. The Christian People's Alliance, and No2EU, a
left-wing Eurosceptic party founded by the late RMT leader Bob Crow, are the next
two largest parties, by numbers of candidates. But 30 parties in all are contesting
seats across the UK.

A big day in London

Every seat in all 32 London boroughs - more than 1,800 in total - is up for grabs on
Thursday, 22 May. This has not happened since the day of the general election in
2010, when Labour bucked the national trend by getting 36.4% of the vote to
the Conservatives 34.5%. Ed Miliband's party lost to Boris Johnson in the 2012
mayoral contest. Mayoral elections are also taking place in Hackney, Lewisham,
Newham, Tower Hamlets and Watford.

England expects...

Elsewhere in this year's English local elections a third of seats are up for grabs in
most councils.

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Accessibility SiteMap Gidhlig Languages

Current Party Balance

This table lists the current number of MSPs in each party. The table is arranged by
party, with the largest party appearing first.

Party Party Leader Total

Scottish National Party Alex Salmond 67

Scottish Labour Johann Lamont 37
Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party Ruth Davidson 15
 76

Scottish Liberal Democrats Willie Rennie 5

Scottish Green Party Patrick Harvie 2
Independent 2

Alex Salmond current Scottish first Minister http://www.scottish.parliament.uk

TRADE UNIONS

People management - Trade unions

Trade unions are organisations of workers that seek through collective bargaining with
employers to:

Protect and improve the real incomes of their members

Provide or improve job security
Protect workers against unfair dismissal and other issues relating to employment
legislation
Lobby for better working conditions
Offer a range of other work-related services including support for people claiming
compensation for injuries sustained in a job

Individual trade unions have historically been associated with specific industries, trades and
professions. Examples of trade unions which are still active include:

Association of Flight Association of Teachers and Bakers, Food and Allied

Attendants (AFA) Lecturers (ATL) Workers Union (BFAWU)

Communication Workers Fire Brigades Union (FBU) National Union of

Union (CWU) Journalists (NUJ)

Prison Officers Association Professional Footballers Transport and General

(POA) Association (PFA) Workers' Union (T&G)
 77

The two main functions of a trade union are to represent their members and to negotiate with
employers. The basic concept behind a trade union is that of increased bargaining and
negotiation power which comes from acting together.

Not surprisingly, trade unions often refer to a traditional rallying call unity is strength.

The traditional view of the employer/trade union relationship has been one of
confrontation. However, in most cases employers and union representatives have a
constructive relationship. Indeed, it is possible to identify several advantages of unionisation
from the employers point of view:

Negotiating with trade unions (ideally a single union) saves time and cost rather than
dealing with all employees individually
Unions are part of the communication process between the business and employees
Employee morale and motivation may be improved if they know that their interests
are being protected by a union
The trade union can be a supportive partner in helping a business undergo significant
change

In the UK there has been a long term decline in union membership. In 2008, only 28% of
people in a job in the UK were members of a trade union. That percentage is much lower in
the private sector where less than one in six employees is in a union. Unionisation is much
higher in the public sector at over 50%.

The overall level of trade union membership in the UK is shown in this chart produced by
the Office of National Statistics:
 78

From the chart, you can see that total trade union membership in the UK has almost halved
from its peak of over 13 million in the late 1970s.

The extent of trade union representation also varies enormously by sector. For example,
nearly 60% of people working in education are members of a trade union but only 6% of
people in hotels and restaurants and only 11% of people working in wholesale, retail and
motor trades

The main reasons for the decline in union membership are:

Decline in employment in manufacturing (where union membership is traditionally

strong) and an increase in employment in the service sector (e.g. retail) where unions
are less well established
Growth in the number of small firms which tend not to recognise (or need) trade
unions
Significant growth in flexible working (part-time, temporary, seasonal) where
employees see less need for union protection
Improved employee involvement in the workplace so less perceived need for
collective bargaining

Partly as a result of their declining membership, unions now have significantly less power
and influence to determine pay and conditions than twenty years ago although in some
industries (including postal workers, railway worker, fire fighters and prison officers) unions
are still prepared to exert their industrial muscle.

Under UK law employers must recognise a trade union in pay and employment discussions
when a majority of the workforce want to be represented and has voted for it. But there is
little evidence that union members secure any significant wage mark-up or greater job
protection than people in non-union jobs.

Source : http://tutor2u.net/business/gcse/people_trade_unions.htm

Friday 7 September 2012

Unite union leader warns of wave of public sector strikes

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, pledges to escalate protests against austerity
measures before next election

Dan Milmo, industrial editor

Len McCluskey: 'We are talking about low-paid workers. If they get an additional 40 a
week, they will be spending 40 per week, not putting any of it in the Cayman Islands.'
Photograph: David Levene
 79

The leader of Britain's largest trade union has warned of a wave of public sector strikes over
pay and pledged to escalate protests against austerity measures before the next general
election.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said there was a real likelihood of co-ordinated
walkouts, less than a year after a dispute over pensions saw the biggest outbreak of industrial
unrest since the 1970s. Speaking before the annual TUC conference next week, McCluskey
said he would support any call for further strikes.

"I will certainly be supporting a call for co-ordinated strike action over pay," said
McCluskey, whose union has 1.5 million members including 250,000 public sector workers.

McCluskey said public sector employees had endured a three-year pay freeze and faced
another two years of restraint, with pay increases in 2013/14 and 2014/15 to be capped at
1%. "That is scandalous. The attacks on public sector workers are unfair, and our members
remain furious and angry. There is a real chance of co-ordinated industrial action, if not this
winter, then early next year." Unison, the biggest public sector union, has also called for
strike action against George Osborne's pay plans.

A motion put forward for the TUC conference by the Public and Commercial Services union
calls for "co-ordinated strike action against cuts in pensions, pay and jobs this autumn."
Although that motion must go through the composite process where it is combined with
contributions from other unions, some form of strike call is expected to be voted on by
delegates. The PCS, the UK's largest civil service union, is seeking strikes as soon as
possible after a TUC-backed march in central London on 20 October dubbed "A Future that
Works", with hundreds of thousands of people expected to attend.

Around 1 million public sector workers took part in a one-day strike on 30 November last
year against pension reforms, with some unions, including the PCS and Unite, keen to
continue protests against reforms to public sector pensions.

McCluskey said he expected strikes and protests to increase as a general election approached
in 2015. "I see the issue of strikes and protests actually increasing as we move closer and
closer to a general election. It is the only way democracy can work when huge numbers of
people disagree with what the government is doing." Referring to last summer's riots,
McCluskey warned of the dangers of youth unemployment with 1 million 16-to-24-year-
olds searching for work. "There is an anger that may drift to desperation and then obviously
anything can happen."

In a speech at the TUC conference, McCluskey will urge the government to raise the
minimum wage by 1 to 7.19 and introduce a cap on energy bill increases. Describing the
minimum wage hike as a "huge stimulus" that would not cost the taxpayer, McCluskey said:
"There will be a huge injection of funds into the economy. We are talking about low-paid
workers. If they get an additional 40 a week, they will be spending 40 per week, not
putting any of it in the Cayman Islands." McCluskey added that a fuel bill cap would also
have a stimulatory effect by curbing hikes in fuel bills that are running at around 1,310 per
year. "We have got energy companies making huge, huge profits. If the government is
interested in being on the side of ordinary working people it would not be difficult to
intervene and put a cap on that."
 80

McCluskey also revealed that membership of the Labour party among Unite members was
probably at its lowest ever figure of around 12,000, which included 2,000 recruited this year
through a campaign to attract more people into the party. McCluskey said Unite had seen a
lot of activists become disillusioned with the party, especially in its new Labour period, and
resign. "I almost did myself," he added.

2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
reserved.
 81

THE UK AND THE WORLD

http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=victoria

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca October 30, 2011

The Commonwealth Summit

PERTH, Australia - Commonwealth leaders have agreed to develop "one clear, powerful
statement" of values for the 54 member countries but enforcing those values is another
matter. A summit that was described as an urgent "moment of truth" for the relevancy of the
grouping of former British colonies wrapped up in good-humoured ambiguity Sunday.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard touted the decision to develop a new Charter and
new rules for a ministerial management body as "major decisions" and "significant reforms."
 82

But the promised Charter can't paper over the group's failure to act on more crucial reforms
for tackling human rights and democratic abuses by member states. A priority appeal for a
new Commonwealth human rights commissioner to investigate and publicize abuses was
among the key reforms that were side-lined for further examination. The repeal of laws
against homosexuality in a majority of Commonwealth countries met the same fate.

A reform panel appointed by the Commonwealth in 2009 submitted a report for the Perth
summit that flatly asserted the association has lost its relevance and is in a state of decay due
to member countries running amok without censure. But two thirds of the 106 urgently
recommended reforms were punted to study groups for further examination "kicked into
the long grass" in the words of one reform panel member.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed frustration at the slow, bureaucratic pace of
reform, but nonetheless refused to sound off on an organization he says "remains relevant
and effective." "Realistically I don't think you can expect to drop 106 recommendations on
leaders with a few weeks notice and expect all of them are going to be accepted in the space
of a weekend," Harper said at a post-summit news conference, before embarking on the
long, 30-hour flight home to Canada.

Nonetheless, Harper's patience for the Commonwealth's worst offenders appeared limited.
Canadian officials said Harper walked out of the summit when Sri Lankan President
Mahinda Rajapaksa, the host of the next biennial Commonwealth leaders' summit in
Colombo in 2013, was invited to speak to the assembled leaders Sunday. Harper had said
coming into the 2011 meeting that he would boycott Sri Lanka's meeting if human rights
abuses linked to the bloody end of the Tamil insurgency there were not investigated.

It was just one of many jarring notes on the summit's final day, when words of progress and
reform were belied by the dirty details. A new human rights commissioner the lynchpin
of the reform report is no longer needed in the form recommended, said Kamalesh
Sharma, the Commonwealth's secretary general. That's because a ministerial management
group has been given new powers to enforce human rights abuses.

When it was pointed out at the closing summit news conference that the management group
includes Bangladesh a country named as one the world's worst offenders by Human
Rights Watch Sharma turned defensive. "I do not feel that it is fair to isolate one country
and start discussing what the issues may be," Sharma said. But the Commonwealth's
reticence about naming and shaming human rights offenders was at the heart of the panel
report. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, Canada's representative on the 11-member panel,
had asked the leaders this weekend not to bury the problems. Even the Queen, in a
surprisingly direct speech to open the summit, tacitly implored members to endorse the
panel report, urging "further reforms that respond boldly to the aspirations of today and that
keep the Commonwealth fresh and fit for tomorrow." In the end, there was nothing bold
about the outcome.

Harper was left to rationalize what he could of a trip around the globe that offered only
marginal progress. "We are not under the illusion that things are perfect." Without naming
the United Nations, the Francophonie or any other international grouping to which Canada
belongs, Harper shrugged off the compromises that come with the summit territory. He
suggested the pursuit of human rights and rule of law is a never-ending work in progress.
"While the Commonwealth has not been perfect in pushing those objectives, in fact it is one
 83

of the more effective instruments around the world in pushing those objectives," said the
prime minister. "I think it remains useful in that regard."

Margaret Thatchers Bruges Speech September 20, 1988

Europe's future
This is no arid chronicle of obscure facts from the dust-filled libraries of history. It is
the record of nearly two thousand years of British involvement in Europe,
cooperation with Europe and contribution to Europe, contribution which today is as
valid and as strong as ever [sic].
Yes, we have looked also to wider horizons - as have others - and thank goodness
for that, because Europe never would have prospered and never will prosper as a
narrow-minded, inward-looking club.
The European Community belongs to all its members. It must reflect the traditions
and aspirations of all its members.
And let me be quite clear. Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence
on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the
Community.
That is not to say that our future lies only in Europe, but nor does that of France or
Spain or, indeed, of any other member. The Community is not an end in itself.
Nor is it an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of
some abstract intellectual concept. Nor must it be ossified by endless regulation.
The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the
future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other
powerful nations and groups of nations.
We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane
institutional debates. They are no substitute for effective action.
Europe has to be ready both to contribute in full measure to its own security and to
compete commercially and industrially in a world in which success goes to the
countries which encourage individual initiative and enterprise, rather than those
which attempt to diminish them.
This evening I want to set out some guiding principles for the future which I believe
will ensure that Europe does succeed, not just in economic and defence terms but
also in the quality of life and the influence of its peoples.

Willing co-operation between sovereign states

 84

My first guiding principle is this: willing and active co-operation between

independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European
Community.
To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European
conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we
seek to achieve.
Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain,
Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly
to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.
Some of the founding fathers of the Community thought that the United States of
America might be its model.
But the whole history of America is quite different from Europe. People went there to
get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty
and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has, over two centuries, helped
to create a new unity and pride in being American, just as our pride lies in being
British or Belgian or Dutch or German.
I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to
speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can
do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in
trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the world.
But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in
Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy. Indeed, it is ironic
that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run
everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power
and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to
want to move in the opposite direction.
We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see
them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new
dominance from Brussels.
Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common
purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions,
parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country; for these
have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3562258/Full-text-of-Margaret-
Thatchers-speech-to-the-College-of-Europe-The-Bruges-Speech.html
 85

David Cameron considers a referendum on Europe

Nick Robinson bbc.co.uk September 27, 2012

The prime minister is considering making a major speech about Britain's future relationship
with Europe before December's EU leaders summit. The speech would set out his vision of
how the UK will respond to the recent call from the European Commission President, Jose
Manuel Barroso, for a new EU Treaty creating "a democratic federation of nation states".

Mr Cameron has decided not to use his party conference speech to respond to mounting
pressure within his party for a tougher stance towards the EU and an in/out referendum.

In the weeks which follow the conference he is due to face a series of awkward votes on
Europe in the Commons - including one on Banking Union - which are likely to produce
significant backbench revolts. His biggest ever backbench revolt - after Lords reform - was a
year ago when 81 Tories rebelled against the party line to vote for a referendum.

Debate continues amongst the prime minister's advisers about whether the Conservatives
should promise before the next election to hold an EU referendum and, if so, what the
question should be and when it should be held. A referendum could be used to give the
government a mandate to renegotiate its relationship or to back or reject a renegotiation after
it took place.

There are problems with both and either would risk morphing into a yes/no verdict on EU
membership even if many voters' true views were yes to staying in on new terms. It mirrors
a debate held amongst David Cameron's closest advisers before the last election, after which
he concluded that he would promise a referendum on any new EU Treaty, but not on
Britain's relationship with Europe.

It is a promise that is producing some unforeseen consequences. Britain might be forced into
a referendum on changes that many would argue would scarcely affect Britain at all since
we are not members of the eurozone.

The pressures on the prime minister are now much greater than they were before the 2010
election - UKIP1 is building support and many Westminster insiders believe they could win
the 2014 European Parliament elections; Tory backbenchers are restless and even pro-
Europeans like Peter Mandelson are arguing that a referendum is inevitable.

One proposal being suggested by some close to the prime minister is a promise for a
referendum on, or before, a fixed date towards the end of the next Parliament - for example
in 2019. The Foreign Secretary William Hague has described Europe as like a ticking
timebomb for the Conservative Party. For years he has advised the prime minister that it is
best not to try to defuse it but simply hope that it won't go off.

I understand, though, that David Cameron now accepts that he can no longer continue to
lecture his party not to obsess about Europe and will have to lead the debate. The prime
ministers' advisers are stressing that a speech on the EU is not yet fixed let alone being

1
United Kingdom Independence Party
 86

drafted. A final decision on whether to hold a referendum may well come after any speech
and closer to the election.

We CAN break free from the shackles of Brussels

By Daniel Hannan PUBLISHED: 16 August 2012 | UPDATED: 17 August 2012

After 13 years as an MEP, Daniel Hannan's knowledge of the way Brussels works is
second to none. Now he has written a forensic analysis of why it's rotten to the core.
Yesterday, in our exclusive serialisation, he examined how the euro has brought ruin to
Europe. Today he argues that Britain must break with Brussels if its economy is to
prosper again...

Every nation joins the European Union for its own reasons. The French saw an opportunity
to enlarge their gloire, the Italians were sick of a corrupt and discredited political class.

The burghers of the Low Countries had had enough of being dragged into wars between
their larger neighbours, and the former Communist states saw membership as an escapefrom
Soviet domination. One thing in common is that they all joined out of a sense of pessimism:
that they couldn't succeed alone.

What might have been: The unsuccessful 'No to Europe' campaign in 1975
 87

Confident and prosperous nations, such as Norway and Switzerland, see no need to abandon
their present liberties. Less happy nations seek accession out of, if not despair, a sense of
national angst. Britain signed up in 1973 at what was our lowest moment as a modern
nation. Ever since the end of World War II, we had been comprehensively outperformed by
virtually every Western European economy.

Suffering from double-digit inflation, constant strikes, the three-day week, power cuts and
prices-and-incomes policies, decline seemed irreversible.

It was during this black period that we became a member of the Common Market, with the
electorate confirming the decision by a majority of two to one in a referendum two years
later. Our timing could hardly have been worse. Western Europe as a whole had grown
spectacularly since 1945, bouncing back from the war years with the help of American aid.
But shortly after we joined, world oil prices quadrupled after a crisis in the Middle East, and
this growth shuddered to a halt.

Far from joining a growing and prosperous free-trade area, the United Kingdom found itself
confined in a cramped and declining customs union. We had shackled ourselves to a corpse.
And in doing so, we foolishly stood aside from our natural hinterland - the markets of the
Commonwealth and the wider Anglosphere, which continued to grow impressively as
Europe dwindled.

These historic ties had always set Britain apart from the rest of Europe. Britain might be just
22 miles from the Continent, but her airmail letters and international phone calls went
overwhelmingly to North America, the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent, Australia and
New Zealand.

We conducted a far higher proportion of our trade with non-European states than did any
other member. We still do.

This was why France's General de Gaulle vetoed our first two applications to the EEC.
Perhaps he knew us better than our own leaders at the time did.

French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's first two applications to the EEC. Perhaps he knew us
better than our own leaders did at the time
 88

Twenty-five years later, Margaret Thatcher was to make the same argument when she
observed that throughout her life, Britain's problems had come from Europe and its solutions
from the rest of the English-speaking world.

Nonetheless, in the post-war years, we were far from standoffish about the moves made by
other countries towards greater European integration. Our leaders argued for the creation of
a broad and flexible European free-trade area, doing business with the rest of the world.

What they opposed was a protected European sector, with prices regulated by the state.

That, though, was precisely what the clique of federalists were after - a tight community
based on a common external tariff, industrial and agrarian subsidies and common political
institutions.

Successive prime ministers refused to join a Common Market that precluded Britain's trade
links with the Commonwealth - until Tory prime minister Edward Heath came along.

A fanatical and uncritical Euro-integrationist, he was determined to get us in on any terms.

He acquiesced in full to the EU's agricultural and industrial policies, external protectionism
and anti-Americanism.

He loudly applauded its ambition to become a single federal state - though he downplayed
this aspect for domestic purposes. The case he made to the British people was on economic
grounds - that Britain would be better off - and he expressly denied that our sovereignty
would be affected.

This has been thrown back at the Conservative Party ever since. People felt, with reason,
that they had been deceived, that we had joined on a false premise.

Instead of becoming members of a common market, based on the free circulation of goods
and mutual recognition of products, we had joined a quasi-state that was in the process of
acquiring all the trappings of nationhood - a parliament, a currency, a legal system, a
president, a diplomatic service, a passport, a driving licence, a national anthem, a foreign
minister, a national day, a flag.

There was further disillusionment when the common market itself never properly
materialised. The European Commission turned out to be keener on standardisation than on
free trade.

Rather than enabling mineral water from Britain to be sold in Italy, it preferred to lay down
precise rules on bottle size, content and so on. Products were banned if they did not
conform.

Instead of expanding consumer choice, the European authorities were restricting it. And we
paid for it. All this over-the-top regulation was - and is - fantastically expensive,
outweighing any of the benefits of the single market.

The Commission's own figures show that the single market boosts the wealth of the EU as a
whole by 120billion a year, but this is dwarfed by the annual 600billion cost of business
regulation.
 89

For Britain, the promised benefits of the European community have never been delivered.
On the contrary, our pockets have been picked. In all but one year since joining, Britain has
paid more into the EU budget than she has received back - the exception being 1975,
coincidentally the year of our referendum on withdrawal.

Indeed, for most of those 38 years, there were only two net contributors - us and Germany.
Every other country came out ahead of the game. We did not.

We were also penalised by the Common Agricultural Policy, a system designed for the
needs of smallholders in France and Bavaria rather than an efficient farming sector like ours.
Once again, Britain paid in more and got back less.

As for the Common Fisheries Policy, that was openly anti-British. Its quota restrictions
applied only to the North Sea and not the Mediterranean or Baltic.

Our trade suffered, too. Until 1973, Britain had run a trade surplus with the existing EEC
members. It now went into deficit, where it's remained to this day. Meanwhile the markets
that Britain forsook - Canada, Australia, New Zealand - surged.

Our institutions, temperament, size and experience equip us to seek a fundamentally

different relationship with Brussels

Today, while the eurozone remains stagnant, the Commonwealth is expected to grow at 7.2
per cent annually for the next five years.

This fact seems to escape Euro-enthusiasts. In a debate last year, a former Europe Minister,
Labour's Denis MacShane, told me condescendingly that what I failed to appreciate was that
Britain sold more to Belgium than to the whole of India.

That, I replied, was precisely our problem. Which of those two markets represented the
better long-term prospect?

Yet, four decades on from the disastrous decision to join the European project, Britain still
has alternatives. There is still a world beyond the EU - if only we would separate ourselves
from what amounts to a restrictive, protectionist and high-tariff customs union rather than a
proper free-trade area.
 90

And the good news is that we can. There is nothing to stop us pulling out and going our own
way.

Unlike other parts of the EU, such as Germany, we are not held back by a reservoir of
European sentiment, desperately clinging to some notion of unity and union for historical
reasons.

Our institutions, temperament, size and experience equip us to seek a fundamentally

different relationship with Brussels. As the euro crisis deepens, seceding increasingly seems
the right way to go. So what precisely is the alternative to EU membership? Well, several
countries - ranging from the Channel Islands and Liechtenstein to Iceland and Turkey - are
already part of the single market without being full members of the EU.

While each has its own particular deal with Brussels, all have managed to negotiate
unrestricted free trade while standing aside from the political institutions.

The best model is Switzerland, which rejected membership in a referendum in 1992.

Although its main political parties had campaigned for a Yes vote, they accepted the verdict
of their people and negotiated a series of commercial accords covering everything from fish
farming to the permitted size of lorries on highways.

The Swiss have all the advantages of commercial access without the costs of full
membership. Switzerland participates fully in the four freedoms of the single market - free
movement of goods, services, people and capital - but is outside the ruinous Common
Agricultural Policy and pays only a token contribution to the EU budget. Swiss exporters
must meet EU standards when selling to the EU - just as they must meet, say, Japanese
standards in Japan.

But they are not obliged to apply every pettifogging Brussels directive to their domestic
economy.

Tory prime minister Edward Heath was determined for us to join the EEC on any terms

Critically, Switzerland is also free to sign trade accords with third countries, and often does
so when she feels that the EU is being excessively protectionist.

The result is that the Swiss export four times as much per head to the EU as we do.
 91

So much for the notion that our exports to the Continent depend on our participation in the
EU's institutional structures.

But what, you may ask, if we leave and the other member states turn on us? What if they
decide to discriminate against our exports?

This is hardly likely to happen since we import more from the EU than the EU imports from
us.

They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they restricted the cross-Channel
commerce from which they are the chief beneficiaries.

Overnight, Britain would become the EU's largest trading partner and most important
neighbour. Love us or hate us, they wouldn't turn their backs on us. And nor would we turn
our backs on them.

As well as our trade links with the Continent, we would want to continue intergovernmental
cooperation, our military alliance and the like. We cannot but be interested in the affairs of
our neighbours.

At the same time though, we would raise our eyes to more distant horizons and rediscover
the global vocation that our fathers took for granted.

There are those who argue that we as a nation are too small to survive on our own in this
way, but such a notion rests on a misconception.

The most prosperous people in the world tend to live in tiny countries, such as Liechtenstein,
Qatar, Luxembourg, Bermuda and Singapore. The 10 states with the highest GDP per head
all have populations below sevenmillion.

If sevenmillion Swiss and fourmillion Norwegians are able not simply to survive outside
the EU but to enjoy arguably the highest living standards on Earth, surely 60million Britons
could manage?

And anyway, what matters to a modern economy is not its size but its tax rate, its regulatory
regime and its business climate.

What has changed most radically of all in the 21st century is technology. In the 1950s when
the European economic community was launched, regional blocs were all the rage. So were
conglomerates of every sort - in business, in politics, in the trade-union movement.

Wise-sounding men asserted authoritatively that the world was dividing into blocs, and that
it would be a foolish country that found itself left out.

Nowadays, though, distance has ceased to matter. Capital surges around the globe at the
touch of a button. The internet has brought the planet into a continuing real-time
conversation. Geographical proximity has never mattered less.
 92

A company in my constituency in south-east England will as easily do business with a firm

in Dunedin, on the opposite side of the planet, as with one in Dunkirk, 25 miles away. More
easily, indeed.

The New Zealand company, unlike the French one, will be English-speaking, will have
similar accountancy practices and unwritten codes of business ethics. Should there be a
dispute, it will be arbitrated in a manner familiar to both parties.

None of these things is true across the EU, despite half a century of harmonisation.
Technological change is making the EU look like the 1950s hangover it is.

So, if the United Kingdom pulls out of the EU, if we can negotiate an amicable divorce, we
can be reasonably certain of one thing - that we will be better off.

But that's not all. The European dynamic would be wholly altered too - and for the better, as
other nations demanded a similarly reformed relationship.

The exit of the United Kingdom would tilt the balance fundamentally in favour of the core
federalist states. But many of the nations on the periphery would become uneasy.

There could well be a separating-out into a compact European Union - based around
Germany and France, with a single currency, a common finance ministry and the full
panoply of fiscal union - and a European Community, of which Britain would be a member.

This Community would be linked to the European Union through a free market and
enhanced inter-governmental collaboration but its members would remain politically
independent.

This separation might well be beginning anyway as a result of the euro crisis. The centre is
finding it harder and harder to maintain its hold.

European integration rests, to a far greater degree than its supporters like to admit, on a
sense of inexorability. People might not have chosen political union but, since it is
happening anyway, they shrug and go along with it.

But if one of the four largest member states were to opt out, that sense of inevitability would
evaporate and Europe would be able to regroup in ways that make more sense.

In my opinion, getting out is now the greatest gift Britain could give not only to ourselves,
but Europe as a whole.

If we set the precedent, others will surely follow - and troubled Europe might yet be rescued
from her current discontents and economic woes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189465/We-CAN-break-free-

shackles-Brussels.html#ixzz26rDO0SWi
 93

David Cameron can prove de Gaulle was right about us all along
The Daily Telegraph January 18, 2013

Since David Cameron has had to postpone his speech on Europe because of the terrible
events in Algeria, I propose that he now keeps us waiting just a little longer. He should
deliver it on January 29. Then it will be 50 years to the day since General de Gaulle, the
president of France, vetoed British entry into the European Economic Community. De
Gaulle understood Britain better than most of our own leaders. A week earlier in 1963, he
had signed the lyse Treaty, enshrining friendship with Frances former deadly enemy,
Germany. He knew that Britain would never engage in the sort of full-hearted partnership
that he had just forged. Britain would not fully sacrifice her independence to create a new
European political entity.

He was right. Our entry into Europe, and the referendum in 1975 about whether to stay in,
would only be won, pro-European British leaders believed, if the loss of sovereignty could
be played down. Europe was sold on its alleged practical advantages. But its founding
fathers were intent on creating a new political order.

The first British prime minister to protest at the way things were going was, of course,
Margaret Thatcher. Her Bruges speech in 1988, half-way in time between de Gaulles Non
and Mr Camerons promised oration, was a cry of pain against the move to a United States
of Europe. It was also a prescient call to see Europe as much bigger than a tight little club of
its Western nations.

Bruges changed the weather. What it did not do, however, was change the policy, even at
home. The ever closer union enshrined in the founding Treaty of Rome rolled forward.
Britain complained, but half-heartedly. Mrs Thatcher was thrown out of office on the
initiative of pro-European colleagues. Even the concept of a two-speed Europe, so
disapproved of by Euro-purists, accepted the idea of ever closer union same destination,
just an argument about pace. The European caravan trundled on.

The creation of the euro, and the inevitable crisis into which it has sunk, have changed that.
Most EU countries joined the euro: we didnt. Most eurozone countries see the solution to
the crisis as economic union, banking union, fiscal union political union in all, perhaps,
but name. Britain will not be part of that union. Even if Mr Cameron longed for it (which he
doesnt), he would have no hope of achieving it. So what he is talking about or will talk
about if only that speech gets delivered is not two speeds. It is a fork in the road. This is a
recognition, half a century too late, of the difference which de Gaulle understood. Mr
Cameron will be saying to European colleagues: Please accommodate this fundamental
difference. If you do not, were off.

Like most Eurosceptics, I do not feel particularly confident about what happens next. Part of
the Coalition Agreement though naturally it is not so expressed is that this Government
will do nothing about Europe. Since it finds itself swamped by the most momentous period
of European history since the fall of the Berlin Wall, this is, to put it mildly, a pity. But there
it is. So all that Mr Cameron is doing is telling his party, his country, the EU and the world
in that order of priority what he would do in the currently rather unlikely event of his being
prime minister with an overall majority from 2015. He is electioneering, not governing.
 94

But it would nevertheless be a mistake to trash the speech which Mr Cameron intends to
make. It would be mean-spirited, incomprehensible to the public and tactically foolish.
Much, much better to bank it. He is going much further than any British prime minister
since we entered the EEC good. He is going much further than he originally intended
better.

It puzzles me that Eurosceptics are arguing in such detail about what a referendum should
say and when, exactly, it should be introduced. These questions matter very much, but they
cannot be answered yet. In 1975, the question on the ballot paper was Do you think the
United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)? It was
the classic in/out question and, from an anti-European point of view, the answer went the
wrong way. Eurosceptics should not set a trap for themselves. They should register the fact
that the supporters of European integration are almost all opposed to a referendum. They
should note the huffs of protest from the increasingly elderly ranks of the usual suspects
Lord Heseltine, Kenneth Clarke, the CBI (The Confederation of British Industry the UK's
leading independent employers' organization) and be quietly pleased.

Unfortunately, the institutional forces of greater European integration remain much stronger
than their opponents. They have the political and legal power, the banks, the bureaucracy,
the vested interest of the elites, the backing of President Obama, and even though they
have managed to lose billions of it the money. In the eurozone, they seem intent on
pushing towards a United States of Europe. They will probably manage it. Then it will fail,
and great will be the fall thereof. This is very sad, but also, for those of us who want our
country back, an opportunity.

UK-US special relationship in danger, warns

Philip Hammond
Defence secretary tells of concern over renewed Franco-
American alliance, while Ed Miliband insists bond will endure
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent

theguardian.com, Friday 30 August 2013 20.30 BST

John Kerry's remarks on Syria, in which he praised France as the US's 'oldest ally' and made no mention of
Britain, have worried British MPs. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
 95

Defence secretary Philip Hammond has expressed apprehension about the future of
Britain's defence ties with the US. Hammond's comments came as John Kerry, the
US secretary of state, praised France as the oldest ally of the US and made no
mention of Britain.
In an interview with Channel 4 News, the defence secretary showed how the Anglo-
American special relationship had been shaken by the parliamentary defeat when he
said that France's renewed alliance with the US placed Britain in an "uncomfortable
place".
Hammond said: "I am disappointed and I am slightly apprehensive. We have a very
close working relationship with the Americans. It is a difficult time for our armed
forces, having prepared to go into this action, to then be stood down and have to
watch while the US acts alone or perhaps the US acts with France."
Asked about the renewed Franco-American alliance, Hammond said: "It's certainly
a reversal of the usual position and it will be an uncomfortable place for many
people in the British armed forces who are used to working alongside the Americans
as an everyday, normal course of business."
Ed Miliband, who was accused by David Cameron of "letting down America" in a
tense telephone call on Wednesday, according to Labour, reached out to
Washington by making clear that he still remains committed to the Anglo-American
special relationship.In a Guardian article, Miliband also makes clear that the US will
always play a leadership role in the world.
The Labour leader writes: "I believe the special relationship should and will endure.
Our shared history, values and institutions require nothing less. And there is no
solution to most of the problems of the world, whether it is the Middle East peace
process, climate change or Syria, which does not go through the United States."
Miliband, who says that Britain should always work with the UN as part of an
approach he dubbed as "hard-headed multilateralism", says that Britain should
"listen and engage" as Obama confronts the Assad regime. He writes: "As the
president of the United States and his colleagues make difficult judgments with
regard to the situation in Syria and other challenges in international affairs, Britain
will always listen and engage."
But he warns that Washington could no longer take British support for granted.
"What the events of last week have shown is that however close that alliance, on
occasion, Britain may take a different view. The British people rightly expect its
parliament to reflect their views and concerns and represent the national interest."
Labour sources made clear that David Cameron was acutely concerned that
Miliband was posing a threat to the special relationship when he warned him in
their negotiations during the week that his tactics were "letting down America".
In a tense telephone call at 5pm on Wednesday, when the Labour leader demanded
a second parliamentary vote to authorise military strikes, the prime minister also
told Miliband he was supporting the Russians who have repeatedly blocked UN
security council resolutions condemning the Assad regime.
A Labour source said that Cameron told Miliband he was "siding with Lavrov" a
reference to the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.
 96

Cameron told Obama in a telephone call on Friday that he would personally support
US strikes against Syria but said that Britain would not join the campaign after his
parliamentary defeat. In what was described as a friendly 15-minute conversation,
the president said he fully understood and respected Cameron's decision to consult
parliament. Obama reassured him that he remained committed to the special
relationship.
Asked by Sky News whether he would apologise, he said: "I don't think it is a
question of having to apologise. Politics is difficult. That involved going to
parliament, making an argument in a strong and principled way, but then listening
to parliament. I think the American public, the American people and President
Obama will understand that."
The prime minister, who definitively ruled out any British involvement in military
strikes against the Assad regime, made clear to Obama that he would personally
support him if he took action. He told Sky News: "I think it's important we have a
robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we
will continue to do. We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will
continue to work in all the organisations we are members of whether the EU, or
Nato, or the G8 or the G20 to condemn what's happened in Syria.
"It's important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons.
But one thing that was proposed, the potential only after another vote
involvement of the British military in any action that won't be happening."
In his Guardian article, Miliband makes clear that Britain should always work with
the UN before embarking on military interventions. But in what he calls a "more
reasoned and considered approach" to foreign policy, he says that Britain should
keep open the possibility of acting without the authority of the UN security council.
He writes: "The UN security council is the forum in which Britain should seek to
make its case to the world, test that case, and where effective alliances should be
built. This does not rule out acting without the authorisation of the Security Council
but in accordance with international law, as was the case with Kosovo. But seeking
to work through the UN must be the essential precondition of any action."