open Democracy News Analysis - Gordon Brown - Comments

Zen9 on "Charles Clarke questions Trident replacement"

Zen9 — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:18:43 +0000

Greenpeace is avowedly anti-nuclear weapons (if not anti-nuclear per se) and thus is highly biased. To treat a report by them as valid for a debate about nuclear weapons is to not want a debate at all, merely the abandonment of the Deterrent regardless of the costs to our defence.

Not logged in on "Charles Clarke questions Trident replacement"

Not logged in — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:29:07 +0000

Even if you take the 'deterrent' argument at face value, we simply don't need our own nuclear weapons.

Has no-one else thought that if a rogue state or dictator was to threaten a nuclear-less future UK with their own nuclear weapons, that the US would intervene? There is simply no chance that they would allow either a nuclear attack on the UK, or a country to gain anything by threatening the UK.

Even the French would surely step in, because a nuclear attack on London would cause some loss of French lives, and be a serious threat to the quality of life for many French people, particularly Parisians. They owe us one after 1945 anyway.

Whether the cost is 110 billion or 97 billion or 20 billion, it's still a huge waste of money for an illusion of grandour.

And what would any country gain from a nuclear attack anyway? They can't steal any resources if they have blown them all up, and it wouldn't be a 'war ending' move as another country would intervene, and in other conflicts such as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear weapons simply have no uses.

Mike Small on "Charles Clarke questions Trident replacement"

Mike Small — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:06:48 +0000

The true costs are being unveiled as nearer £110 billion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed

as we reported earlier: http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/mike-small/2009/05/15/wmd-jobs-and-the-union

Savage cuts anyone?

Zen9 on "Charles Clarke questions Trident replacement"

Zen9 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:47:02 +0000

There is no reason to drop the Deterrent, especialy now.

Britain gained the bomb to a detere certain state from seeking domination over Europe, invade Britain and to keep a certain exra-europan ally reliable. Nothing has changed in this basic analysis and its conclusions.

Reliance on another to defend you is to hand that other the power to betray you.

Trident is the cheapest system for the level of effectiveness available, and once ABM proliforates this cheap option will cease to be cheap if its to be kept effective.

Joss Cope on "Charles Clarke questions Trident replacement"

Joss Cope — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:16:18 +0000

Greenpeace has just produced a new report, In The Firing Line, which reveals true costs of £97 billion for Trident: five times government estimates.

How can this expensive project be justified at a time of economic crisis and emerging threats to national security such as international terrorism, failed states, pandemic diseases and above all, climate change?

And does it really deliver genuine security for the UK?

The report has received the backing of many senior political and military figures, including former shadow defence secretary Michael Ancram, who wrote the report's forward, Lib Dem shadow chancellor Vince Cable, and Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant-General of Defence Management.

You can read a summary of the report’s findings at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFLsummary

And the full report at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ITFL

paul pawlowski on "What England needs"

paul pawlowski — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:36:46 +0000

1 - change the Oath so that english republican could be elected and take his-her seat in the house

Republic of England
Republic of Scotland
Republic of Wales
Republic of United Ireland
Federal government for the British isles at Werstminster

mgk on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

mgk — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:11:15 +0000

I am worried about Gordon Brown. Also worried that my comments may be published, due to poor behaviour on this site. Anyway Gordon Brown and lack of use of the world "England". I always refer to this country as "England" and it will always be known as "England" to me. I docked in a ferry in Wales recently, and a fellow Englishman said to me. "Ah we are in England at last"...I said, no my friend, not just yet; Going to London? Yes he said....h'mm you will see that "Welcome to England" sign for another 100miles or so. Then you will be in England. Read that sign with a passion for England. Learn, again, know all you can about England, it is your country, and you will need to fight once again to keep it. The EU is the problem and the Lisbon Treaty....economic, and political sharing.....but the final stage is the sharing of the NAVY, THE ROYAL NAVY, and the defence forces, and after 200 and more of fighting France and Germany, it is incredible now we are just going to be giving them the ships. For once I am greatefull to the Irish who overturned the situation with a "No" vote. And Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy tried to take England into the treaty with no election in England. He is getting away with too much. This is all perceived, by political writers, so that either Gordon Brown or Nicholas Sarkozy can be President of the New Federal Europe. Look at Gordon Brown at the moment talking in World Terms. Is he off the beam. But it is a distraction currently. I am not in favour of that Lisbon Treaty. The Royal Navy played such an Integral Part in the Social History and Prosperity in England's success. I will haunt Gordon Brown and all his family, in the afterworld, if he ever so much as dares give England away to those Europeans. They have really been a lot of trouble and bother now for several hundreds of years. Take my advice my friend and countrymen, refuse to talk metric weights and measures. Go back to the Imperial system, and think of the Queen and you will be on the right path to saving England once again.

God Save the Queen and England.

alex_buchan on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

alex_buchan — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:20:08 +0000

Brown, like most Scottish unionist politicians, has little appreciation for how his actions over Scotland are perceived by the English public at large. He works on the assumption that, in securing Scotland for the union, he will win the admiration of the establishment. Of course Brown’s position is illogical. But truth and logic are seen as expendable in the ‘noble cause’ of keeping the union going. As Scots we’re used to this kind of deception by our politicians who have bent the truth and logic to secure the union for as long as anyone can remember.

Toque on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

Toque — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:21:28 +0000

All that may be true, I have no reason to doubt it, but it was before my time.

Brown endorsed the idea that the Scottish and Welsh national identities were distinct from "the rest of Britain" and therefore demanded distinctive political national expression.

What concerns me now is applying the logic of the Kilbrandon Commission - we think therefore we are - to England. If Brown can apply that logic to Scotland and Wales, even if only for pragmatic unionist reasons, then stands in an illogical place if he can't recognise England's equal right.

Bizarrely his argument now seems to be that England doesn't require distinct English institutions because it is not sufficiently different from "the rest of Britain" (even though "the rest of Britain" require, and now have, their own national institutions to separate them from England).

alex_buchan on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

alex_buchan — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:19:15 +0000

Gareth, I think this is where people tend to go wrong in reading Brown. In the period around the Kilbrandon Commission those unionists who were more progressive in Scotland in both the Conservative and Labour party were in favour of devolution. I remember people like Malcolm Rifkind coming along to our tutorials with Hendry Drucker. Others such as Brown and the Tory MP, Alec Buchanan Smith were all in favour of reforming the British constitution to meet Scottish aspirations. Brown’s acceptance of the Kilbrandon definition of nationality was for purely practical reasons, in that it cut through niggling over definitions.

The attitude of this group of politicians reflected a lack of sentimentality towards the British constitution that reflects a Scottish tradition that sees Britain as a vehicle for achieving things in the wider world but has little attachment to the English traditions that underlie it. This is linked to a Presbyterian millenarianism that sees the British Empire as a vehicle for spreading protestant Christianity. This view includes a demonising of Scotland’s past before the reformation and sees Scottish nationalism as a narrow selfishness.

The main advantage that has propped up this ideology over the centuries is access to the big stage, both commercially and politically. It was therefore perfectly consistent for them to want to push devolution, because it tweaked the machinery of the state to keep the show on the road in the face of growing disenchantment amongst their fellow Scots. In doing so it aimed to safeguard that access to the big stage of Westminster.

Toque on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

Toque — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:08:55 +0000

Alex, I've read that book. Brown has already flip-flopped on the in-and-out principle, he's on the record as opposed to English Votes.

The more interesting thing about The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution is that Brown endorses the Kilbrandon Commission's opinion that Scotland is a nation because the people think of Scotland as a nation, and no other definition is required.

It's on the basis of national identity - distinctiveness from the rest of Britain - that Scotland won/was offered devolution And it's on those grounds that Brown supported it. Dougthedug may say that Brown is not a Scottish nationalist, and I can appreciate where he's coming from, but at least Brown recognises Scotland.

trimmerb1234 on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

trimmerb1234 — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:06:29 +0000

Brown couches his "Britishness" in odd impartial and conditional terms - listing the admirable qualities as if he is arguing perhaps in the face of doubters that, on balance, Britain is more admirable than not or, alternately, that these are the best mitigating factors he can think of. Love of country, I sugggest, is like love of one's parents - natural and unconditional for similar reasons: they gave one one's being - it is partiality. A list of good qualities in contrast is a way of appraising something alien, it is without affection. It may be a legitimate way of describing his particular Britishness but he clearly is not one to define "Britishness". I very much doubt if he would define his Scottishness in a similar bloodless fashion of qualities. The profound history of danger, of sacrifice, of world signficance shared by England and Scotland (Empire and two world wars) has the English uttlerly accepting of Prime Ministers of Scottish birth. A proportion of that post war Scottish generation who have only known peace and prosperity and have made no sacrifice believe themselves to be victims of England. Jimmy Porter said that there were no great causes any more. That's why people now have to invent them. These are not heroic times, they are the times of elective-victimhood and posturing pseudo-heroes.

Dougthedug on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

Dougthedug — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:29:41 +0000

fred forsythe (not the) wrote:

He is a foreigner hell bent on racist policies to see his auld enemy wrecked before he goes back to an independent Scotland.

Fred, his nightmare is an independent Scotland. I'm afraid his wrecking of the economy is down to simple incompetence rather than some fiendish plot. Though looking at the wreckage, if it was a fiendish plot it would be a very good one.

Jefford wrote:

I have never thought Brown is a fervent British nationalist

I'm afraid it's the truth that he is a fervent British Nationalist. The devolution that Labour created is not based on the nations of the UK, it was based on the idea that Scotland, Wales and NI are provinces of the UK and the idea of further provincial devolution in England rather than a English Parliament was a natural consequence of that. Brown simply doesn't recognise the nations of the UK as valid, despite his signing of the Claim of Right in Scotland.

Jefford wrote:

Labour is fundamentally a Scottish/Welsh party

I would dispute that. Labour beat the Conservatives in England in the 2005 GE in the number of seats gained.

You're right that Labour now view Devolution as a threat but it was intended as a safety valve for Scottish Nationalism and as a means to secure the Union not as a means to give Scots a step up towards independence.

alex_buchan on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

alex_buchan — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:37:10 +0000

Gareth perhaps you should ask whether the Prime Minister still hold the views he expressed in The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution [1980] Published by Books on Demand
ISBN 0608131040, 9780608131047, which he wrote with my old politics professor Henry M Drucker.

Written after Brown had been the chairman of the Scottish Labour Party's devolution committee, which had failed to deliver on the devolution referendum, he advocates that any future revision of devolution "could embody some form of the 'in-and-out' principle. Under such a principle, the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating English or Welsh domestic matters."

Toque on "This England, What England? (Gordon Brown and the denial of England)"

Toque — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:21:22 +0000

Britologywatch, I think you're correct. Brown's vision can never be implemented as policy because his vision is British and he can only implement social policy in England.

Scotland and Wales are fortunate that they have some protection against Brown's statecraft, but perhaps that was always the intent.

Use a Fredom of Information Request to find out which bunch of feckless civil servants is answering your petition on behalf of our annointed leader. You'll get a quicker response that way.