Mikeuk

I just got back from a debate at the Strathclyde University Union, speaking against a motion pro multiculturalism (I'll post details later) which was proposed by the Head of the CRE in Scotland, Kay Hampton.

It was a most civilised and friendly event. I wish I could say the same about the wino-riddled streets of Glasgow outside.

I wasn't officially representing UKIP but the Chairman, no friend of the Tories, took great pleasure in recounting how I split the vote in Portsmouth North. When I asked him why they hadn't asked for an official UKIP speaker he said the party hadn't been able to provide one.

One of the other people on my side was from Veritas though - Therese Muchewicz of Bradford - and there were also two student Tories.

UKIP could have missed a trick here. Obviously I didn't mention UKIP in my speech but I did put a few plugs in when talking to members of the audience afterwards - mostly SNP supporters.

Mikeuk

Motion - This house believes it is possible to be a part of a nation but not a nationality.

Thank you for a most excellent supper. Enoch Powell said that one should always make a speech on a full bladder and in the city which named a railway station after him I am particularly mindful of that advice.

Indeed, the other day, while relieving myself in a pub toilet, I read the stirring command `Be loyal stand erect, and always wear your country's colours'. on a vending machine selling condoms emblazoned with the St George's Cross. It speaks volumes about what remains of English patriotism. I read in yesterday's paper that pride in the nation is at an all-time low, and I can well believe it.

When I first became interested in politics the division on nationalism, patriotism and so forth was fairly simple. If you were on the left you were in favour of One World, the melting-pot turning out coffee coloured people by the score, and generally opposed to relics of imperialism such as the union jack.

If you were on the right you supported flag and empire, throne and altar and all the usual stuff that goes with it.

Since the advent of Blairism we have seen a weird attempt by people of his persuasion to `reclaim' national emblems, not that they ever belonged to the left in the first place. No doubt some Blairites really believe that there are those who would be prepared to lay down their lives for a diverse and tolerant society, but I doubt it somehow. We are more likely to end up with warriors like Mr Bean, the sailor who cried when the Iranians deprived him of his ipod.

The line-up of speakers on each side here with what I take to be supporters of multiculturalism on the one side and sceptics on the other seems to give us a further clue as to what is intended. At one level, obviously, the proposition is unexceptionable. If I choose to retire to France for example, pay taxes to the French state and obey French laws while remaining a British national , I can indeed hopefully exist as a useful part of the French nation without being a part of French nationality. But that, of course, is not what we are talking about here.

I think the crucial question revolves around the notion of multiculturalism, which has been a key tenet of the ruling class in Britain for more than a couple of decades. It is not my purpose to examine the history of multiculturalism but it appears to me that it replaced the old establishment principles of `colour-blindness' and ` integration' following the riots in Brixton, Liverpool and elsewhere which took place in the 1970s.

The idea, I suppose, was to discourage dissatisfied members of ethnic minorities from rebelling against the state by deferring to them in all matters whether that be manifest in the police treating black drug abusers more leniently than their white counterparts, in overgenerous state subsidies for minority interest festivals, or in leaflets printed in umpteen different languages.

The host community – and that means you Scots as well as Englishmen like myself – has been expected to bend over backwards to keep our relative newcomers happy. It has been an extraordinary policy, unparalleled in any state in history except where imposed by force of arms; introduced without any consultation with the taxpaying public, and as far as I can tell, largely unsupported by an electorate which, when I first became involved in politics, regularly showed majority support for the views of Enoch Powell and which now appears increasingly inclined to vote for the British National Party and its imitators.

Increasing support for racial nationalists such as the BNP is not something I welcome because I personally believe in the concept of a monocultural society which, although rooted in the European ethnicity of the majority host community of these islands, is open to all who are prepared to embrace it.

Exactly how we define our culture may be a very tall order indeed, but I think it is far easier to define what not part of British culture is and what, indeed is not acceptable. Treating wives as skivvies is not acceptable for a start and nor, obvious as it may seem, is suicide bombing.

It never ceases to amaze me that those self-styled liberals who are the greatest champions of the multicultural society are invariably prepared to turn a blind eye to conduct by members of minority communities which they would condemn with the greatest vehemence were the perpetrators members of the white community. Abuse of women, aggression against homosexuals, violent religious fundamentalism. The list is endless. It seems that we have truly reached a situation where there is one rule for certain minorities – usually the most aggressive and disaffected - and another for the rest of us. Incidentally `us' in this context is likely to include the most agreeable minorities such as the Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese, as well as we Anglo-Saxons and Celts.

These dual rules are largely being made not by the minorities themselves but by politicised members of the host community. Small wonder that so many of us are turning away from democratic politics altogether, while others are turning to BNP style extremism. Truly, we in England are becoming a polarised society. In Scotland you have other preoccupations and fewer members of minority groups but you will be fortunate indeed if Glasgow and Edinburgh do not in due time find themselves going down the same pernicious road as the cities of Lancashire and Yorkshire.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln warned America that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Now we in Britain – more in England I think than in Scotland – have created a house that is increasingly divided against itself. There were already in northern cities virtual no-go areas, with clear ethnic divisions between the peoples of those cities, when we received the shattering news that members of minority groups born and raised in this country had murdered other innocent citizens in pursuit of quasi-religious fanaticism. A country that contains nations within the nation will not survive.

I want to touch briefly upon the question of nationality and, if you like, a sense of belonging. I think we do ourselves no favours these days by deferring to the tyranny of Political Correctness. Being Scottish, English, or British is as often as not a matter of degree and I would make the point that none of these things are some kind of badge of merit. If a Frenchman lives in England and I call him a Frenchman rather than an Englishman, that is not an insult. He would probably feel more insulted if I called him an Englishman. George Frederick Handel, Joseph Conrad and Jacob Epstein all contributed immeasurably more to this country than some 100% Anglo-Saxon or Celt skinhead whose world revolves around football thuggery, but to suggest that they are as British, or as English or Scots as the thug is simply nonsense, because the roots of each of these great men lie elsewhere.

The question is brought into relief rather more when we talk about our Englishness or Scottishness, because England and Scotland have not been separate states or nationalities for centuries, so both titles must perforce carry an ethnic or racial implication as opposed to referring to purely political identities. Now consider this reflection on the state of Political Correctness today. If I were to move to Scotland, wear Highland dress on every conceivable occasion and loudly proclaim that I had become a Scot I would be rightly ridiculed by every one of you. But suppose I were not an Englishman but a British Asian, or indeed any Asian. Would your attitude be different? I suspect many of you would take a rather more muted approach to the second example, but is this not simply an instance of the hypocrisy which is engendered by the Political Correctness which enslaves our multicultural society

Or should we say *so-called* multicultural society. In the cosmopolitan atmosphere of a university you may sometimes believe that such a society is reality throughout Britain, but the truth is that ethnic minorities represent only a little over 10% of the total population and most of those minorities are concentrated in certain cities. For many of you, when you return to your family homes in the Highlands or the Borders, or the residential areas of the great cities, your surroundings are resolutely white European and monocultural.

It is exactly the same when I return to coastal Hampshire where I live. The point that I am making is, therefore, that the notion of the multicultural society has little reference to reality. It is, in fact, an ideological concept that has been forced upon us by our ruling class; a set of assumptions which are designed to make us think in a particular, non-nationalistic manner. That the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales believe they can square the circle between multiculturalism and their own concepts of nationalism never ceases to amaze me, The British National Party, which is a largely English-based movement, offers a more exclusive interpretation of nationalism, and however much we may disapprove of the BNP their brand is one that is more readily recognisable to students of the genre.

In conclusion, I submit that although nationality is not restricted purely by ethnic background, it is defined by a culture that all must embrace, or the nation – our nation - is doomed.

C_steam

which side of the motion won?

Mikeuk

Supporters of each side shouted aye or nay and after a couple of attempts the Chairman (the Vice-Chancellor of the University) decided the other side won, but it was close.

I had a long chat with the Chair of the Scottish CRE. She is a black South African married to a Scot and she seemed to me to be a remarkably 'normal' person to occupy such a high position in the race relations industry.

Some of her arguments in the debate were a bit weird though. At one stage she seemed to be suggesting that that the problem with our suicide bombers was not that they were 'multicultural' but that they had been born and brought up as modern young Britons.