My Heart Goes Out To The Good People Of Germany

I've spent a lot of time in Germany in recent years I've visited Ulm, Munich, Hamburg, Trier, Memmingen and many smaller places on the Kiel Canal and River Elbe. I've made German friends through dancing and another set of German friends through sailing.

Germany has rebuilt itself since World War Two, its industry, its towns and cities and its society. It has coped brilliantly with reunification and created a liberal, peaceful, environmentally caring society. German towns are clean and virtually litter and graffiti free, everything works and by far the majority of the people are welcoming, educated, charming and hospitable. Policing is also polite and low key.

Largely thanks to its liberal society Germany has adopted a virtually open door policy towards refugees. This has been encouraged by heart rending depictions in the media which often chooses to film women and children in particular.

The thing is, that if you wish to live an a liberal society, as I do, then welcoming millions of immigrants (Germany received over one million in 2015 alone) who may not wish to live in a liberal society will probably cause conflict.

On New Year's Eve organised gangs robbed, physically and sexually assaulted women in a number of towns in Germany, but especially in Cologne. Victims have reported that the men were of Arabic appearance and spoke neither German nor English.

It may be circumstantial evidence but it is a fact that most of the new immigrants are men who have actually left their women behind. Many of these men come from countries where women's rights are restricted and at worst where women are treated as chattels.

If you come from a society where women have to be covered from head to foot without choice on their part, a place where women are under the control of a father until they are put under the control of a husband chosen for them, if you are used to women walking behind you and not going outdoors at all without a man, possibly a place where women don't have the right to drive a car or own a passport, then Europe requires some adjusting.

Clearly the events of New Year's Eve came as a great shock to the ordinary people of Germany and to the police who were totally unprepared for events. Which brings me back to the point that if you wish to live in  a liberal society then you cannot afford to simply import millions of people who want to live in a different way. Sharia Law for example is anathema not just to Christians but also to secularists, humanists, etc. ie to the majority of European citizens.

I'm not for a moment suggesting we should not help refugees, but at the hub of it is the idea of multiculturalism and political correctness. In Britain we live in a multicultural society, but it's not without problems. I believe strongly in freedom of belief and of religion, I also believe in freedom of speech, but what happens in a democracy if a situation is reached where the majority do not see things that way? Just as communism disallowed other parties so do dictatorships and religious states.

If I spend time abroad I obey not just the laws of the country, but I also respect its culture and traditions, personally I do not want to go to a British enclave in some other country. My conclusion is that Angela Merkel got it wrong, probably for the best of reasons. Now the lady mayor of Cologne has suggested that German women now need to behave differently. NO.

What is needed are checks and balances, you cannot just allow millions of people in without knowing who they  are, or where they come from (whether indeed they are actually refugees), or their likely intentions. Young men who have left their women behind and who regard them as second class citizens still don't expect to be celibate and they may regard western women in an unfortunately biased and negative way too.

Here in the UK thousands, of young British girls, often underage even, have been abused by organised gangs of men from a different ethnic background. The police turned a blind eye because of political correctness and even now that the truth has emerged there has been only a handful of prosecutions.

Help refugees yes, but checks and balances to ensure our civilised and liberal way of life which we and our forebears have worked hard to achieve is not lost. We have a culture too and multiculturalism and political correctness threaten it, here and in the rest of Europe, but especially political correctness. The debate needs to happen and people coming in have to be detained and checked. Not in an unkind way, but to prevent conflict later. Now the freedom to cross borders within Europe is under threat, which is sad, but the loss of our way of life would be sadder still.

Devolution And Inequality in Britain - Give The English A Say.

The enthusiasm politicians, local politicians and even some normal people have for ever more devolution baffles me. Scotland voted to remain in union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Largely I suspect thanks to the Barnett Formula. The temporary, believe it or not, Barnett Formula was drawn up in 1978. In fact Lord Barnett, who drew it up to end bickering about spending amongst Labour politicians (remember the days when Labour and Scotland were not divorced?) anticipated it would last for thirty six years, but even he has said recently that it is now both unfair to the English and an embarrassment.

He's dead right and those canny Scots know when they're on to a good thing. So, they voted for the union, bribed by a promise that Barnett would continue, AND that they would get an even greater say in their own affairs. Naturally the Westminster government of the day didn't want to preside over the break up of Great Britain, (what a legacy that would be!) so they promised everything from the family silver to the deeds to the house.

However, having voted to stay in union and keep the subsidy our canny northern neighbours then promptly gave the SNP, a blatantly Nationalist party, virtually complete control north of the border and a mandate to troop triumphantly down to Westminster to ensure not only that they receive all the bribes, but a bit more if possible.

Now, as a matter of principle promises should not be broken and so David Cameron has to honour the promises he made. Shipyard workers in Portsmouth to remain unemployed, Clydeside workers not so, and all the rest. However, the people of England made no such promise, so lets look at some facts and then decide whether it's time the English had a say!

The Barnett Formula doesn't only benefit Scotland, actually the biggest beneficiaries financially speaking are our cousins in Northern Ireland a country we continually rebuilt as quickly as the people there blew it up and killed each other (plus innocent soldiers from other parts of the UK including a good friend of mine).

The other financial winners in all this are the Welsh, and what the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh all have in common is a devolved parliament. My astute readers will have picked up my lack of enthusiasm for devolution at the beginning, so no, I'm not going to argue for a devolved English parliament, tempting though it is.

Some more facts. The Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh are all represented at Westminster, even if some Northern Irish politicians don't avail themselves. Sorry, yet more facts and figures. The population of Scotland is circa 5.3 million, the population of Northern Ireland is circa 1.9 million, the population of Wales is circa 3.1 million and the population of Yorkshire is circa 5.3 million, notice something there? The population of London is circa 8.6 million and the population of England as a whole is a little over 53 million. No prizes for working out where most of the tax revenue comes from then.

So, since Scotland has has 59 constituencies, N. Ireland 18, Wales 40 and England 533, then as well as having their own parliament there's an MP elected to Westminster for approximately every 89,830 Scots, every 105,555 Northern Irish and every 77,500 Welsh. England comes in at one MP for every 99,437 voting adults, meaning that pro rata the Scots and Welsh are over represented at Westminster vis a vis the English despite also having their own parliament as well. Only the Northern Irish are arguably under represented but then the English population is growing.

The Northern Irish may be under represented pro rata at Westminster, although if you have your own parliament anyway perhaps that's reasonable, however Northern Ireland does even better than Scotland when it comes to the Barnett Formula. Public spending in Northern Ireland was £10,876 per head in the year 2012/13 that's £2,347 MORE per head than in England. The Scots received £10,152 spend per head, that being £1,623 MORE per head than the English, to help pay for their free prescriptions and free university education north of the 'border', a free education not available to English incomers. The poor old Welsh only had £1,180 per head more spent on them than the English.

I'd like to make several points from all of this. In the first place more devolution means more bureaucracy, more expense, more waste. Secondly it's pretty ludicrous in a country the size of ours, London and Yorkshire have at least as good a claim to their own parliament, but most people would think that ridiculous.

The most important thing is that devolution leads to inequality and injustice. We try not to discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, religion, belief, age or gender, so why in a so called United Kingdom do some people get free prescriptions and others not? Why do some get free university education and others not? Why do some get thousands more spent on them each year and others less? Why are some over represented and others under represented? Why should some have their jobs artificially protected and others not, simply because of where they live in this so called United Kingdom the Scots voted to preserve?

When Scotland joined Great Britain as we liked to call it in those days Scotland was bankrupt, largely due to ill advised adventures in Central America, whilst English merchants and sailors were creating a booming economy in England. Ship building was virtually non existent on the Clyde, whilst ship building in Portsmouth, Deptford and other places had a far longer tradition and was producing great ships in great numbers. A tradition now eradicated to protect Scottish workers. Anyone notice the size of the swing to the SNP in Glasgow particularly?

Frankly it's getting ludicrous. We should be a United Kingdom where everyone is treated equally, where everyone has equal rights and lives under the same laws. Clearly that is not happening. The fashion for devolution and the rise of nationalism, especially in Scotland, has made us a divided nation. Salmond, Sturgeon and their cohorts have taken three hundred years of friendship and brotherhood and driven a wedge through it. Destructive, negative, sad. I would prefer to see it reversed, but it's unlikely. So what can we do about it? Cameron may be bound to honour his promise, but the people of England have not been given a say, yet another inequality.

If we cannot have one parliament fit for purpose, which is fair and even handed towards all its citizens, then sadly it's not time for devolving powers to Yorkshire or anywhere else; that will simply lead to more diversification, inequality, bureaucracy and expense, more jumped up local politicians shouting for this and that.

However it is high time to give the English their voice. Do we want to continue to pay the most and have the least to say about it? Cameron and the rest of the politicians may have made promises, but we the people of England did not, maybe we should have our own referendum on whether we keep subsidising our already over privileged neighbours through the Barnett Formula and possibly as well, or instead, a referendum on whether we actually let them stand on their own two feet like Lichtenstein, Luxembourg et al, cut them adrift.

Perhaps despite the years of brotherhood it is actually time to let them go. If they don't want financial, educational, welfare and judicial parity with the rest of us, then let them pay for the things they want from their own labour and their own tax regime; then the powers they and the overwhelmingly elected SNP seek will be justified, but please, end this craze for devolution, expense, inequality and injustice now.

The Migration Crisis In The Mediterranean And Eleswhere

The world's politicians are managing the migration crisis with all the ineptitude they can muster, which, as we know is plenty. The Roman Empire was no paradise, but its end was largely brought about by people wanting what the Romans' had. It led to what we euphemistically call the Dark Ages.

Britain long ago chose, in the wake of empire, to become a multicultural society. Some see that as a wonderful and enriching thing, others complain it's destroying our own culture and traditions. I tend to the former view, but things aren't quite that simple there's an element of truth in both positions, life is rarely black and white.

Even if one embraces multiculturalism, has not an ounce of racism, religious bigotry or prejudice about anything, unlimited migration does create problems and people trafficking is a dangerous and evil abuse. Now, we can all sit back and let our talented politicians deal with it, or speak up for a better world.

Britain's answer is to threaten to leave the European community unless we get control of our borders back, whilst sending ships to Libyan waters to pick up illegal immigrants and dump them on Italy. Of course we're not the only ones doing it. We chose to become multicultural, it doesn't mean we have the right to insist others do so too, it's their decision, that is the democracy we're all so keen on.

Italy has a rich culture and they're rightly proud of it, dumping all these people on their doorstep isn't right. Nor is their economy in better shape to deal with it. If you're going to rescue thousands of people you need to have a policy as to what you're going to do with them afterwards. (Just as if you go to war, you need a plan for the peace, the successors of Bush and Blair please take note). By the way I'm all in favour of saving lives at sea. I'm not quite so happy about people deliberately taking stupid risks, especially when the message sent out is 'put yourself at risk and we will not only rescue you, but will help you complete your illegal journey (at least as far as Italy, you can make your way to England or Germany on your own)'.

We are of course encouraging the people traffickers and depleting countries who need fit, strong and in many cases educated people to help build their own countries. Naturally, once again it's not black and white, some are economic migrants, some are fleeing genuine persecution. Some will look for work and to make a contribution to society, others, possibly in desperation, will turn to crime to support themselves. Even violent crime, I've experienced it at first hand in Athens.

So the questions are: Do we rescue migrants who've put themselves at risk in overcrowded un-seaworthy boats? Do we use special forces to take out people traffickers and their boats and resources? Do we return people whence they came? If we don't return them, then where do we put them and is it a sustainable answer? If there's not a sustainable solution to the previous question, how do we help people build a life for themselves in the countries they're currently leaving?

If you can answer all these questions in a common sense way, with a degree of humanity and in a way which will make the world a better place, perhaps you should be running for office, in your own country, or in the European parliament.

It's not just about culture, bigotry, prejudice. It's also about overcrowding and the pressure on health services, transport, housing, the environment and it's about people having worthwhile lives in their own countries, not splitting up families, not making the countries they've left into barren wastelands whilst Europe becomes ever more pressured and crowded. It's not about pushing the problem onto Italy, Spain or anywhere else.

I'm not sufficiently arrogant to think I have all the answers, but since I don't like what I see and have taken the trouble to speak out and write about it I feel I should at least suggest answers to the questions above for consideration.

Of course we should save lives at sea. Should we destroy the people trafficking industry? It may not be easy, but I believe we should use all the resources we have available to fight any evil. Whether or not to return people whence they came is a hugely contentious question, but it needs to be faced up to, without the assumption that to say yes brands someone racist or a bigot. The problems of unrestrained mass migration are real. Rescue and welcome people and more will come, obviously. So yes, sadly I believe we must send people back, but we have to try and help them in their own countries too, whether that is through aid, diplomacy, peace keeping, or more likely a mixture of all three.

Many people are fleeing war, or smaller internal civil and tribal conflicts, we simply have to end war, before war ends us. It's not sustainable to keep taking people in ad infinitum so that the numbers looking to enter increase exponentially year on year. So, like it or not, we have to face up to the problems in Africa and the Middle East, we need more creative solutions from the people who've put themselves forward to govern, we need peace, not to just send ships from all over to fish people out of the sea and dump them on Italy.

Useless Politicians

Watched the Sunday Politics Show today first we were treated to a 'debate' by four politicians Conservative, UKIP, Liberal and Labour, due to the upcoming European elections - farcical; all pre-prepared statements of their own party's positions, when they weren't bickering and talking over one another that is. At least they were prepared, after a fashion, as we then had a Tory and a Labour politician debating a controversial local TV programme from earlier in the week about benefit fraud; neither one had watched the programme, but it didn't stop them talking about it and they wonder why the general public think all politicians are a waste of rations and oxygen!

The Scottish Independence Referendum

Per head of population it seems to me that Scotland is over represented at Westminster. On top of that they have their own Parliament, with not inconsiderable powers. Not so long ago we had an unelected Scttish Prime Minister who bankrupted the country and whose minions left an apologetic note in the treasury before turning out the lights.

Scottish kids can get a free education where English, Welsh and Northern Irish kids can't. Scottish patients can get free prescriptions and access to some drugs which English, Welsh and Northern Irish patients cannot.

Whether you call this a United Kingdom or Great Britain it is not united because it isn't equal. The Scots claim the English have taken their oil. I've sailed across the North Sea and let me tell you those rigs are not in coastal waters, they're out there in the middle.

When Norway prospected for oil in the North Sea, they asked their neighbours the Swedes if they wanted to share in the adventure, the costs and the benefits. Sweden declined, Norway went ahead without them and solely reaped the benefits of their investment.

Great Britain also invested in exploration and drilling, not Scotland, Great Britain and all of us benefited, but most of the jobs were in hard done by Scotland.

Cameron promises a referendum on Europe and talks about leverage to get a better deal for Britain. I think the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should have a referendum on whether we want to stay with Scotland, perhaps that would give us the leverage to demand a fair deal for us on prescriptions, dentistry and educational equality.

Don't get me wrong. For the record I think Britain should stay in the EU on business grounds and that the break up of the United Kingdom would be a mistake for all concerned. Our grandparents and parents fought shoulder to shoulder with the Scots through two world wars, we were all brothers then, and we're a small group of islands, multi cultural but brothers and sisters nonetheless. I cannot understand why on earth sixteen year olds can vote in the Scottish referendum when they can't vote in a general election, if anyone's going to vote with their heart rather than their head it's a sixteen year old. One up for for the independence lot, and look out for multiple re runs of the Braveheart propaganda film.

So, if the Scots vote for independence the oil should be divided pro rata by population, because we all invested in it. Scotland should create its own currency, not try to claim ours and pick and choose the bits of independence they happen to like. If companies move south don't whinge about it. An independent Scotland should apply to join the EU and if they're considered too bad a risk then tough. But if they want to stay in a United Kingdom then we, the rest of us in this land should get our say and proper equality as should be our right now, today. Note Labour are promising to devolve still more power to Scotland as a carrot to get them to stay, ie even more inequality for the rest of us.

And where did all this Scottish angst come from? Norman Tebbit wasn't so far off the mark with his football test. If England aren't playing but Scotland, Wales or one of the Irish teams are I always root for the 'home' nation, but the Scots create the impression they'd sooner see anyone win than England.

I actually love Scotland and want to remain friends, but if we are to remain a United Kingdom then we should all live under the same laws and conditions, Scotland has had an unfair advantage for too long and now they want even more, it may not be politically correct to say so, but that's the truth of it.

Domestic Murder

I was appalled to learn that three women a fortnight are murdered by partners or ex partners. I had no idea, I thought the occasional media reports I came across were the whole story, but no, it's so commonplace it's not headline news anymore, it's more than one per week. And still the Police do not respond adequately to pleas for help, they print posters, but fail to respond responsibly, promptly and fully to domestic violence when it happens. The British Police Force is currently not fit for purpose and possibly never was.

Keeping Our Kids Fit

28% of British kids are overweight or obese, so someone in government, it is reported, is considering the introduction of a sugar tax. Don't ever let it be said that a problem is not an opportunity (for someone).

Does anyone remember a previous government selling off school playing fields for short term gain? Oops now the kids are overweight, wonder why.

So, and this isn't a proposal if I understand correctly, but a fact; £1 and half million is being cut from the government subsidy to the FA for grass roots football because fewer kids are playing. Now it is possible, and many of us suspect, that the FA is really only interested in the upper echelons of the sport which are dripping with money anyway. So why not take all their government money away and spend it on playing fields and tennis courts and other facilities up and down the country where real grass roots people and sports clubs can use them, oh and maybe schools too.