Total Visits

Thursday, 29 October 2015



There is the famous story of how, in a fit of petulance, Edward III decided that his Order of Knighthood wasn’t going to be of the Arthurian Roundtable but rather of the Garter, when his courtiers sniggered at a garter falling off Edward’s mistress’s stocking and which he had bent down to pick up. He is said to have responded ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’, the motto of the garter (meaning evil be to him who evil thinks it).

The Conservative’s House of Commons procedural EVEL tinkering which gives predominantly Conservative MPs a veto in the House of Commons over Bills which the Speaker of the House certifies as being English only has caused a flurry of comment. Some of it utterly hysterical, especially from the Scottish contingent, whether they be SNP or Labour; also, indeed, some Scots representing English seats for the Conservative Party and also the Northern Irish Unionists and Welsh MPs commentators. Generally English commentators tend to think that it is a fairly minor alteration which is merely a nod in the direction of English interests.

As English Democrats we of course say it is far too little to give a proper voice to our Nation’s interests. However one of the more interesting and thoughtful articles written about this has come from the Economist’s constitutional commentator, writing as Bagehot’s Notebook. I reproduce his article below but I think the importance of the article is that it highlights two significant issues.

One is that there is a fundamental choice facing English people in the fairly near future. This is whether the English Nation is happy to be broken up into some sort of bogus regions; whether they be the nine EU “Regions” or Osborne’s half baked “Northern Powerhouses”. What the article shows is that the only viable alternative to Regionalisation is Independence. That is very much the English Democrats’ analysis too and that is, of course, one of the reasons why, as English nationalists, we support English Independence.

The other point that he mentions, but has not yet fully thought through, is the new politicisation of the role of Speaker.

The current Speaker, John Bercow, with his background considering himself to be British not English, will be very likely to certify that any bill where there is any doubt is a British Bill and therefore all MPs have equal rights over it. But when John Bercow stands down or is replaced there will inevitably be a much more hotly contested election than before to be the next Speaker. English MPs, who are moving in the direction of English nationalism, will want to make sure that the next Speaker is much more concerned about English interests than John Bercow is.

On the other hand the Scottish contingent is certain to want a Scot, whether he represents a Scottish seat or an English seat, to try to make sure that there is never a veto on Scottish MPs having a full say on anything which they want to have a say on.

In the meanwhile here is the Bagehot article from the Economist :-

English-only votes set Britain on the path to federalisation—or break-up

Oct 22nd 2015, 17:54 by BAGEHOT

THE House of Commons has just voted in favour (by 312 MPs to 270) of English votes for English laws (EVEL). Superficially a piece of legislative housekeeping—it became law by standing order—this measure fundamentally changes the way the United Kingdom functions. The country should be an unwieldy, unstable beast: few multi-part polities in which one segment is much mightier than the other work out. But Britain’s union, 84% of which is England, has lasted for three centuries because the English have for centuries allowed their political identity to be blurred into that of the British state (as I argued more fully in a recent column, pasted below this post). Today’s vote draws a line under that; a faint one, perhaps, but a line nonetheless.

Its roots lie in the febrile final days of the campaign leading up to Scotland’s independence referendum last September. Polls suggesting that the Out side was narrowly ahead panicked unionists in London, who issued a “vow” promising extensive new powers for Edinburgh. On the morning after the In victory David Cameron, in a speech outside 10 Downing Street, argued that it was also time for England to gain some self-determination. The moment had come, he argued, for EVEL: a system giving MPs for seats in England precedence in parliamentary votes no longer relevant to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom that now control swathes of their own domestic policies (most notably Scotland). The Conservatives used this pledge to tar Labour, opposed to EVEL, as the vassal of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) in the run up to the election in May. Duly elected with a majority, the Tories have now enacted it.

I struggle to find the measure particularly offensive. It is wrong that Scottish MPs get to rule on bills concerning, say, only English hospitals. Banning them from participating in such votes would create the risk of two separate governments; one English, one British (in the event of a Labour government reliant on its Scottish MPs, for example). So EVEL rightly gives English MPs a veto, but also requires all bills to pass the House of Commons as a whole. As compromises go, it could be worse.

Still, the risk of a “two-tier” Commons is real. In a chamber where all are notionally equal Scottish MPs will be less powerful than English ones. EVEL greatly inflates the role of the speaker, whose job it will be to decide whether a bill is English-only—and thus whether the English majority should wield a veto. In practice, he will generally rule on the side of Britishness. This, and the fact that further fiscal powers will soon travel north to Edinburgh (meaning that even budget votes could generate expectations of an English veto), will eventually render EVEL insufficient. It seems to me that this movie has two possible endings.

The first, happier one is federalisation. Giving England power over things that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already control would clear the way to a Parliament and government in Downing Street responsible only for matters affecting all British citizens equally: foreign affairs, defence, monetary policy and so forth. An English Parliament risks exacerbating the problem that for centuries has been smothered in the mushy blur of Englishness and Britishness: the unworkable rivalry between any English government and a British one. But English devolution could yet take different forms. Sub-national authorities in England are already assuming powers unthinkable a few short years ago: Greater Manchester will soon run its own health service, for example. The long-term solution to Britain’s constitutional quandaries is probably a federal system in which Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, Edinburgh and Belfast meet together, on equal terms, in London.

The second and more likely possible outcome is separation. English self-denial has been the glue holding the union together. It is melting. Both EVEL and the broader rise in an English sense of identity (comprehensively outlined in a 2012 paper by the IPPR, a think-tank) suggest that the United Kingdom is experiencing a great normalisation. Its constitutional imbalance is finally asserting itself. A ship that has sailed forth for many years despite a strong tilt is finally listing towards the waves. Last year’s Scottish referendum—and the strong appetite for a rerun evinced at the recent Scottish National Party conference—suggests that it is already taking on water. EVEL may prove the point at which it tips too far; at which England’s reemergence accelerates and at which the ship capsizes.


Sunday, 25 October 2015



You have got to laugh at the pitch by Lord Stuart Rose of Monewden who was quoted at the launch of their campaign on the 12th October, claiming that voters should “welcome” mass migration from Europe and that current numbers of people coming to work in Britain are not too high, following on from a year when the best part of half a million migrants came to Britain. Here is the quote “Lord Rose say it is 'patriotic' to want remain in the EU

Click here to see the reporting on this >>>
Britain benefits from welcoming EU migrants, say In campaigners - Telegraph

If he thinks that this is a winning line for his campaign to keep Britain in the EU then personally I think he is deluded but you can see how the multi-millionaire, former boss of Marks and Spencer might think that a flood of cheap labour into Britain might help him and his kind make yet more profit for people like him and enable him to hire cheaper servants and go to a greater diversity of interesting restaurants.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Lord Rose’s background which I think may also be significant in understanding his viewpoint:-

Rose's grandparents were White Russian émigrés who fled to China after the 1917 revolution. Their son, Rose's father, was unofficially adopted by an English Quaker spinster, who offered to take him to safety in England as war loomed. The original family name was Bryantzeff, which Rose's father, ex-RAF and civil servant, changed. His mother's side is English, Scottish and Greek. The young family lived in a caravan in Warwickshire until Rose senior obtained a posting with the Imperial Civil Service in Tanganyika (now Tanzania). Rose went to the Roman Catholic St Joseph's Convent School in Dar es Salaam until he was 11. When he was 13 years old his family returned to England and his parents sent him to Bootham School, an independent Quaker boarding school in York. His first job was as an administration assistant at the BBC.

What do you think?

Friday, 23 October 2015


If you were to believe the BBC and most of the “mainstream media” you would think that most people in England are clamouring for an open door immigration policy and allowing in unlimited numbers of economic migrants and, in particular, so called refugees from Syria.

The few opinion polls that have been published relating to this show that the opposite is true. The vast majority of the People of England do not want to see more migrants from any part of the world flooding into our country.

Here is an article about this >>>

It should not therefore really surprise anyone that the one democratically elected politician who has been full-throttle opposed to mass immigration into his country, in particular mass Muslim immigration, should have seen his popularity rise to unprecedented levels of support. For example, here is an article from an enemy confirming his support >>>

Our electoral system which clothes parties with the support of only about a quarter of the electorate with the illusion of majority of support, such as Cameron in the recent election with the votes of 26% of the electorate and Tony Blair in the 2005 election with the votes of only 21.6% of the electorate. 

One of the problems of our nation is therefore actually our “elected” leaders are not in fact representative of the majority of opinion in our country. I would suggest that, if they were, our country would be run in a very different and more democratic way. There would then be an immediate end to mass immigration.

What do you think?

Thursday, 22 October 2015



On Friday, the Daily Express carried an article showing that despite the concerted efforts of the British and American political Establishments and mass media, the majority of the English people support the decisive action being taken by Russia’s President Putin and the Russian military in supporting the only viable answer to the Islamist terrorist army of Islamic State or ISIS. Here is a link to the Express article >>>
More than 70% SUPPORT Vladimir Putin's ISIS airstrikes despite rising Middle East tensions | UK | News | Daily Express

On Friday I was asked by Russia Today whether I would comment on it and here is a link to their article about it and at the bottom of the article you can play the sound track of their interviews with others >>>
Why does Western public opinion support Russian ops in Syria? — RT Op-Edge

Also here is a link to my interview >>> Robin Tilbrook about public opinion on Russia's campaign in Syria - YouTube

In my view it is not at all surprising that the common sense minded public in England has not been bamboozled by the efforts of the mass media into thinking that we have got to support some groups of “moderate” Islamists, whatever that might amount to, in fighting President Assad, when it is all too clear that frequently that the so-called moderate Islamists accept the weapons and training that they are given before defecting to ISIS.

The United States has a track record of misjudging this kind of situation. After all in Afghanistan the rise of the Taliban was largely the result of US policy, supported by Islamists within Pakistan, originally with a view to undermining the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. They succeeded in arming and training a huge number of Islamists who then, not surprisingly, proceeded to take-over the country and run it according to fundamentalist Islamic Sharia Law principles. The same cack-handed approach seems to have been attempted in Syria leading to a protracted civil war.

In considering what has happened in the Middle East it would be remiss not to mention the mainly British and American intervention in Iraq, which not only led to the deaths of uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis, but also the virtual collapse of the Iraqi State.

Having learnt nothing from Iraq, David Cameron and William Hague plunged into an attack on the Libyan Government, led by Colonel Gadaffi, and have left that country in a Hobbsian state of nature of a “war of all against all in which man’s life is nasty, brutish and short”! Both Iraq and Libya are products of a neo-colonialist “liberal interventionist” doctrine developed partly by Tony Blair, over amongst other places Kosovo.

This doctrine is in stark contrast to one of the most fundamental rules of "international law" from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War, until modern times. It was generally considered to be a clear breach of "international law" for other countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. 

Not only is this new doctrine very doubtful as a concept of "international law", but also it is demonstrably both contrary to Realpolitik and dangerous. The Syrian conflict is merely the latest manifestation of this Blairite dodgy doctrine. A doctrine which is even more dodgy than Blair’s infamous dodgy dossier which he used as a pretext for war in Iraq!

It has to be remembered that the States in the Middle East are the product of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and of the disastrous peace conference of Versailles. The boundaries were drawn principally to enable the colonialist victorious powers to divide up the territory between them. With this agenda in mind, it would not have suited the imperialists to have States which had homogeneous Nation States created with a strong sense of their identity and cultural roots. Instead what imperialists wanted were States where the opportunities for the ancient Roman imperialist doctrine of “divide and rule” could easily be applied.

It was for this reason that Iraq, for example, was created with borders that were drawn by British decision makers at Versailles to break up the Kurds, who are by any usual measure a Nation partly into Iran, partly into Iraq, partly into Syria and partly into Turkey to prevent them from uniting. A mixture then of Sunni Arabs, the Marsh Arabs and part of ancient Persia were then added to the mix to create the new territory of Iraq, which British imperialists hoped could never be expected to unite against them.

Even so it should be remembered that the British imperialists did find it impossible to maintain control of Iraq and, despite the best efforts of the young “Bomber Harris” to bomb opposing populations into submission, the British Empire withdrew from Iraq setting up what they hoped would be a puppet State. In fact of course Iraq, like most of the States set up in this way, has inevitably wound up with a series of dictators as willingness to use violent oppression is probably the only effective way of maintaining control of a disunited, antagonistic and feuding population.

Syria is of course another one of those States where the borders were drawn up arbitrarily to include different populations. In the case of Syria it was in the interests of French imperialism and again a series of dictators following withdrawal of France has been the only effective way of keeping that State together. It is in this context that the American and to some extent the British policy of supporting groups of Islamist rebels against the current Government of Syria has to be considered. I do not think it is at all surprising that this ill-thought out policy has resulted in catastrophe.

If the real objective is to get rid of ISIS the only sensible answer is the policy that President Putin and the Russian Government are now pursuing which is the open and full throttle support of the Government of Syria. The fact that so much time and effort and money has been spent by the Obama administration and his other Western allies on other tactics (including the drone terrorist tactic of assassinating individual opponents), suggests that either they must be utterly incompetent or they have another hidden and perhaps more sinister agenda; or that they have been misled by their alliance with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of which countries have been sponsors of Sunni Islamist terrorism in Syria.

What do you think?

Sunday, 11 October 2015

English Democrats News

English Democrats News

The English Democrats National Council met in Leicester for the first National Council meeting of the 2015/16 Political Year.

The meeting began with confirmation of the Co-options to the National Council, welcoming for 2015/16 the following National Council Members, Bridget Vickers (English Voice Editor), Graham Moore (Twitter Director), Therese Hirst (Policy Chairman & Social Events Director), and David Allen (Yorkshire Area Chairman).

The most significant business of the meeting was to make the annual appointments of the Party Officers as detailed below this article.

David Allen (Yorkshire) is welcomed to the National Council, following the retirement of Ian Sutton due to ill health from the National Council.  Thanks were given to Ian Sutton for his work for the English Democrats over the past 3 years in Yorkshire.

The New English Democrats Web-site was also approved for launch, following many hours of hard work by Communications Director Stephen Morris.

Steve Uncles, also presented the May 2016 Election Strategy for the English Democrats, where the main focus continues to be on Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Area Council, will shortly be up and running to focus on the 2016 Police Commissioner Elections in North, West and South Yorkshire.

Jenny Knight the new EU Out Campaign Director, presented the current view of the various “EU Out” Campaigns progress.

There are currently 4 Vacant positions on the English Democrats National Council, if you believe you can assist in the development of the party, then please write to the National Party Secretary – Derek Hilling (Email –, please indicate which responsibilities you would consider.

English Democrats
National Council Positions 2015/2016
1/ Chairman – National – Robin Tilbrook – (Elected) – Essex
2/ Area Chairman – North East – Kevin Riddiough (Elected)
3/ Area Chairman – North West – Stephen Morris (Elected)
4/ Area Chairman – Yorkshire – David Allen (Co-opted)
5/ Area Chairman – West Midlands – David Lane (Elected)
6/ Area Chairman – East Midlands – Derek Hilling (Elected)
7/ Area Chairman – Eastern Counties – Charles Vickers (Elected)
8/ Area Chairman – South West – Alan England – (Elected)
9/ Area Chairman – Southern Counties – VACANT
10/ Area Chairman – London – Roger Cooper – (Elected)
11/ Area Chairman – South East – Steve Uncles – (Elected)
12/ National Council Member – Colin Porter – (Elected)
13/ National Council Member – Steve Clegg – (Elected)
14/ National Council Member – Jenny Knight – (Elected)
15/ National Council Member – Leon Martin – (Elected)
16/ National Council Member – Bridget Vickers – (Co-opted)
17/ National Council Member – Therese Hirst – (Co-opted)
18/ National Council Member – Graham Moore – (Co-opted)
19/ National Council Member – VACANT
20/ National Council Member – VACANT
21/ National Council Member – VACANT
National Executive Appointments 2015/16
1/ Chairman & Leader – Robin Tilbrook
2/ Party Secretary – Derek Hilling
3/ Party Treasurer – Charles Vickers
4/ Campaign Director – Steve Uncles
5/ Communications Director – Stephen Morris
National Council Appointments 2015/16
6/ Policy Chairman – Therese Hirst
7/ Membership Director – Stephen Morris
8/ Conference Director – Kevin Riddiough
9/ English Voice Editor – Bridget Vickers
10/ EU Out Campaign Director – Jenny Knight
11/ Twitter Director – Graham Moore
12/ Facebook Director – VACANT
13/ Video & Audio (You Tube) Director – Steve Clegg
14/ Fundraising Director – VACANT
15/ Blogging Director – Alan England
16/ Social Events Director – Therese Hirst
17/ Chairman/ Appeals/Complaints Sub-Committee – Roger Cooper

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?

Gordon Brown recently did a BBC Radio 4 documentary with much fanfare about one of the principal founders of the Labour Party, James Keir Hardie. Gordon Brown says that fellow Scot Keir Hardie is his hero and inspiration but his narrative had a Soviet style airbrushing out of Keir Hardie’s views on immigration. Here is a link to the programme >>> ? BBC Radio 4 - Keir Hardie: Labour's First Leader

Here is an unexpurgated sample of some of Mr Keir Hardie’s views on immigrants:-

Speaking of the incoming Polish (actually Lithuanians) miners, he said “their habits are very filthy, six or seven males occupying a one-roomed house, and having women to cook for them”

As early as 1887 the Ayrshire Miners Union led by Keir Hardie demanded their removal on the grounds that “their presence is a menace to the health and morality of the place and is, besides, being used to reduce the already too low wages earned by the workmen”.

In his evidence to the 1899 House of Commons Select Committee on emigration and immigration, he argued that the Scots resented immigrants greatly and that they would want a total immigration ban. When it was pointed out to him that more people left Scotland than entered it, he replied:

“It would be much better for Scotland if those 1,500 (Scots emigrants) were compelled to remain there and let the foreigners be kept out… Dr Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so”.

He suggested that the employment of foreigners by British employers should be prohibited, unless they were political exiles or had fled from religious persecution or if they came from countries where the wage rates were the same as in Britain.

Writing in his paper the Miner, he stated that: “For this second time in their history, Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.

I wonder if Keir Hardie's views would now qualify as "British Values" as redefined by this "Conservative" Government now that 'Extremism' is to be redefined as any opposition to the Establishment's revisionist "British values" eg compulsory "respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”

What do you think?

Monday, 5 October 2015



APPG for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry

The Local Government Association, which is a strongly Regionalist association of British Political Establishment apparatchiks, has recently launched an enquiry entitled:- “APP for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry.” I thought I ought to respond to this on behalf of, not only the English Democrats, but also of the English Movement generally. I set out the response that I have sent in below, but first here are the terms of the Inquiry.

A panel, appointed by the qualifying officers of the Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution APPG, will consider written evidence and oversee the oral evidence sessions. The panel will be cross-party and drawn from both Houses and the four nations of the UK. The panel may appoint external expert advisers where it deems this necessary. As part of this inquiry, the Group would like to hear from businesses and voluntary organisations and their representative bodies, academics, and local government. The panel will seek evidence on the following areas:

1. Devolved nations: -

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including in the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. 

Federalism in the UK.
English Votes for English Laws.

2. Local government: -

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom, including in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.

Governance arrangements for decentralisation.

Sustainable funding system for local government.

3. Central powers in the UK and intra-UK relations: -

Implications for the role of Whitehall

Implications for the role of the Houses of Parliament

4. Wider constitutional reform: -

The reform of the electoral system

The reform of the House of Lords

Procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms.

Written and oral evidence will inform the final report. The final report and its recommendations will be submitted to the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Here are my submissions to the Local Government Association Inquiry:-

As Chairman of the English Democrats I am writing to submit evidence to your enquiry. Here are some key facts about the English Democrats:-

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England.

We would be happy to give oral evidence to the enquiry.


In your Terms of Reference you have stated you want evidence on various defined areas:- 1) Devolved Nations; 2) Local Government; 3) Central Powers; and 4) Wider Constitutional Reform. The English Democrats on behalf of the Party itself and on behalf of the wider English nationalist movement would respond as follows:-

1. Devolved Nations

‘Devolution within England’[ cannot properly be described as “Devolution” at all by comparison to Scottish and Welsh national devolution. The only devolution that would be properly so called for England would be of an English Parliament, First Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK.

It is the English Democrats opinion that the time for a Federal UK has already passed. For that to happen what should have happened in the first place when devolution occurred was that a coherent and fair national devolution for each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have been set up with each assembly or parliament having the same powers and a defined relationship with central government, as per every proper Federal State in the world. The fact that this was not done and that England’s just and fair interests have been consistently ignored and derided has led to mounting resentment in England.

It also would have been possible for the UK to have been turned into a Federal Regionalist State in conformity with the EU regionalist objectives but that would have required Scotland and Wales to have been regionalised and not for them to have national devolution. That window of opportunity has now firmly passed.

EVEL or English Votes for English Laws is a bogus, populist positioning policy which does not even properly answer the representational element of the wider English question.

The Conservative Government’s proposals are in any case the weakest of all the proposals for English Votes for English Laws. They will certainly disappoint all those people in England who think that the political system should allow a proper and fair voice for English interests to be expressed. The EVEL proposals do not of course even touch the executive side of the question as there is no proposal to have either a First Minister or Government for England, nor does it touch the administrative side of the question as there is no proposal to have an English Civil Service and not even to have a Secretary of State for England and therefore there is no parity with these proposals with what has been created for Scotland and Wales.

2. Local Government

It is not part of England’s tradition for legislative competence to be devolved from the National Government. However it is part of England’s tradition for our local government structures to be as independent of central government as possible. It is partly the United Kingdom’s increasing obsession with centralisation which has created the demand for Decentralisation. The English Democrats would like to see traditional local government structures re-empowered and there to be a substantial decentralisation of powers.

As the power to raise their own funds is an important part of the effectiveness and independence of governmental structures we would also support decentralisation of tax raising powers to enable local government to fund itself. Those aspects of so-called local government which are little more than local structures being deputised to do exactly what central government wants done should be dealt with by separate agencies rather than continuing with the pretence that they are genuinely part of local government.

The governance of Local government should also be made more democratically accountable with the universal implementation of Directly Elected Executive Mayors for all principal local authorities.

3. Central Powers

The role of Whitehall should be reduced and the role of the Houses of Parliament should be confined much more to those areas which under the current and evolving situation have not been devolved to Scotland.

4. Wider Constitutional Reform

Electoral System

Scotland’s electoral system has shown that despite the whiff of gerrymandering that accompanied the way it was set up, it has enabled a diversity of political opinion to be expressed in the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore to be preferred to an electoral system, such as the current first past the post system for the House of Commons which gives a bogus cloak of democratic majority to a party voted for by only 26% of the electorate in the last election and, with one sole exception, almost wholly denied representation for the votes of nearly 4 million voters. Such an electoral system is not only unfair but it is undemocratic.

House of Lords

The current composition of the House of Lords is completely unsatisfactory and too often appears to rest on cronyism, patronage and donations. Having moved from the original composition of mainly hereditary peers, there are only three options:- 1) Abolition of the House of Lords; 2) Reform to be a democratic UK Senate, as suggested by Lord Salisbury; or 3) A wholly elected Upper Chamber.

Those are the basic submissions of the English Democrats which we would be happy to expand upon in oral evidence if called.

What do you think?