Little Man in a Toque » Blog Archive

Sir Digby Jones

With his policy of a government of all the talents Gordon Brown has inadvertently invited an English radical into New Labour’s midst. Sir Digby Jones is now the new Minister of State at the new Department for Business and Enterprise, and he has some views that the Scottish Raj will find heretical. I refer you to his speech (doc) to the Institute of Directors last year:

Where is the fairness in having a disproportionate number of Scottish MPs (even after the latest reduction) compared with anywhere in England? The West Midlands has a larger population than Scotland… I wish there were as many Brummie MP’s running Britain as there are Scottish ones running England!

Where is the fairness in those MPs having a vote on Education policy in England when firstly they have no vote on Education policy in the Scottish constituency that elected them and secondly no English MP has similar rights north of the border?

Where is the fairness in rivers even by an English local authority in the North of England being run by and regulated by Edinburgh and not London, or even a local English authority?

Where indeed? Perhaps you can bring this up at the Cabinet table Digby.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am and is filed under the english question. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Responses to “Sir Digby Jones”

Charlie Marks Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I very much doubt it. Digby is a representative of the British ruling class, and a solution to the national question in England would result in the further fracturing and eventual distruction of the Union. Where would British capitalism be then? Significantly weakened, i think. If the third of the armed forces who are Scottish join a Scottish army…
Toque Says:
June 30th, 2007 at 5:36 am
You are possibly right Charlie. There’s no doubt that Digby feels very at home in the Establishment, and now that he has his feet under the table I expect that he’ll feel that democracy is more of a luxury than a must.

But I’m not so sure about your British capitalism theory. There’s more than a few capitalists knocking about (including the Adam Smith institute and the some in the Scottish Conservative Party) that think that Scottish independence would be a gift to capitalism in both England and Scotland.

And as for the armed forces, frankly who gives a damn? Personally I see no reason why a dis-united Britain would not keep the same head of state and armed forces under joint command. A bit of qualified majority voting in that respect might prevent us getting embroiled in such ludicrous foreign adventures.
Charlie Marks Says:
June 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I agree that there are those who think an independent Scotland would be good for business, but the demands are not coming from above, but from below. This mistake — for i think the pro-capitalists are wrong in their assumption Scotland would become another Celtic Tiger — is made by those on the left too. An analysis of the SNP’s vote that I’ve read suggests they got the “progressive” bloc, and if they introduce citizen-initiated referenda i can forsee some interesting things being thrown up…

British capitalism is dependent on the rest of the world for most of the wealth — deindustiralisation and financialisation of the economy means there’s a huge trade deficit. Without being embroiled in those ludicrous foreign adventures, Britain wouldn’t be a big hitter globally — at least, this is Blair’s argument. And i think he’s being honest, though I of course desire parity between nations rather than imperialist domination.

The only way that the UK’s economies can be sustainable and provide for the people is if there is a greater focus on developing these economies instead of importing labour and exporting jobs, as the phrase goes.

So far, devolution is providing for a revival of social democratic politics — witness the Labour-Plaid coalition in Wales’ pledge to eliminate private sector invovlement (creeping privatisation, i would call it) in the health service.
Toque Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Culturally and economically the UK – or just England – can be a big hitter.

Politically we are on the wane, and will probably continue to wane, regardless of our erstwhile efforts on the field of battle.

So far devolution is providing a revival of social democratic politics, but then, if you don’t have to pick up the tab, that sort of thing is very attractive isn’t it?
Charlie Marks Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
As a Marxist I would have to assert that it is the workers that always pick up the tab…
Toque Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 6:57 pm
As a not really anythingist I would assert that the workers of Wales pick up a disproportionately smaller tab than they might otherwise do. This is not a point about capitalism vs marxism, but rather a point about asymmetric devolution (a system by which the Welsh also get screwed, but to a lesser extent than us).
Charlie Marks Says:
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Point taken. I come at the issue from a different angle. Yes, there is inequality in what you get from your taxes and from your work. What I’m trying to say is that I would support the reforms gained in Wales and Scotland under devolution being gained in England, which is another reason why I back English independence and the break up of Britain.
Toque Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 am
You come at it from a different angle but I get the impression that our conclusions are not that different.

We need a new approach to the question of sovereignty. If the British Establishment and the absolutism of Westminster is an obstacle to that then I agree that Britain should break up.

I’m not yet convinced that Britain needs to break up, the threat of Britain breaking up should be enough to shake them out of their reverie.

With Brown telling us that he’s going to restore the power of parliament (and with the Democracy Task Force saying the same) there is cause for some hope. What we need is public consultation on our democracy – that means a vote for the English on what form of government they want for England, a referendum on federalism (whether sovereignty should lie with the home nations or Westminster), and a referendum on whether any sovereignty should have been ceded to the EU and whether we should reclaim what powers have been ceded.
Charlie Marks Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 am
My personal view is that Britian was an imperialist creation and that the process of decolonisation will not be complete until the nationalities within the “British Isles” have self-government.

Not that this necessitates a total break off of relations — for that would be absurd. A council of the isles might exist for the purposes of cultural and trading links, etc.

I totally agree that this requires the fullest involvement of the people within the UK. My own position would be: an English republic, sovereignty of home nations, and a withdrawal from the European Union.
Toque Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
I don’t favour presidential systems so I’m happy with a union of the crowns and a looser federation along the lines you advocate. As a Socialist I expect you find that abhorent but you have to work with what you are given, and I detect little enthusiasm for separatism or republicanism.

The British people have too much history and common interest for complete independence (insofar as there is such a thing these days) to be an option; we will always be interdependent and inter-related.

There are some things about the EU that I like (the opportunity to work abroad for example) but I dislike the centralising and homogenising affect that it has. I’m a Europhile, and what I cherish most about Europe is its diversity, which is why I am opposed to the concept of the European Union and its insidious creep even if I am not opposed to the idea of a union of sorts. If it were up to me we’d quit tomorrow and retain concordats that allowed us free access to EU markets.

Personally I’d much rather Britain concentrated more of its attention on the Commonwealth, and in particular the anglophone commonlaw countries that it seeded.
Charlie Marks Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
“Personally I’d much rather Britain concentrated more of its attention on the Commonwealth, and in particular the anglophone commonlaw countries that it seeded.”

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean America, Canada, Australia, etc. The “anglosphere”?

On Britishness, I’d say that it is a concept which only seems to operate within England — but this is ever lessening as an english national identity emerges. Still, I can’t imagine that the Celtic nations would ever cut off relations with an independent England.

As a socialist, I’m more concerned about “the property question” than whether the head of state wears a crown. As an aspect of feudalism that has lasted through capitalism, perhaps it could endure under socialism! I doubt that the monarchy has much steam left in it — certainly not if Charlie boy takes over. They’d do well to skip a generation…
Toque Says:
July 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Yes I do mean America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. But also places like India, the West Indies, Sri Lanka.

See the Anglosphere Primer (a bit out of date but the most concise thing of its kind).

Sir Digby Jones

12 Responses to “Sir Digby Jones”

Leave a Reply

zanex alternative antidepressant

programs for withdrawal from antidepressants

Diazepam Ups Shipping

Valium For Sale

Xanax Buy Domain Xanax Atspace Org

Ambien And Buy

Buy Valium Online With Debit Card

Infertility pregnant antidepressants weight loss with antidepressants 675.

carcinoid syndrome antidepressants

wean off antidepressants comfortably?

list of antidepressant medications

phase ii antidepressant protocol

Xanax Mexico Order

pregnancy and antidepressant medication

number of women on antidepressants,

pregnancy and antidepressant medication

depression relapse on antidepressants

dangerous antidepressants

Buy Diazepam In Uk

Infertility pregnant antidepressants weight loss with antidepressants 675.