Andy Burnham - Non-Elected 'UK' Prime Minister - Splitting England Up, Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question Privileges Outside Continue

                        

How do we explain someone like Andy? Well, he likes the Celtic myth (a 1707 linguistic label from Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd - not an ancient UK ethnicity) and all things 'saintly' and exclusive about three of the UK countries. Look after the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (don't mention Darien, disproportionate activity by the Scots in the British Empire, the partitioning of Ireland by a Welsh PM with avid backing of Protestant Scots, the invention of the Poll Tax by Scotsman Douglas Mason and its implementation there in 1989 by its own Secretary of State, Wales as separate factions and kingdoms, not an ancient, unified nation) and pander to their one-side retellings of history. And as for the far more ethnically diverse England? Stuff that! That is what we know.

One-sided UK 'history' (three saintly countries, one demonic) obviously helped shape Andy Burnham's barely concealed dislike of England. Bury it deep, Mr B - don't even mention the word 'England' if you can help it! Despite more objective reviews of England and the UK's history (no UK country is saintly - but nobody has represented England in discussing issues, historical or modern - it's just been reams of bile from Scots and Welsh Nats, meekly accommodated), Mr Burnham remains committed to the 'nations' (his favoured countries) and 'regions' (a hacked up, expensively divided England). 

Isn't it gross that it looks like we've got a non-elected PM, with no loyalty to England (he has bragged of Irish blood - very odd and rather racist), who wants to break England further into pieces? Well, all UK, Scots and Welsh MPs favour that, of course.

Burnham is, of course, co-author of Head North (featuring a UK outline mainly featuring nationally devolved Scotland on its cover).

Now, the Barnett Formula (reviled by its late creator Lord Joel Barnett as unfair to England) and West Lothian Question - producing fiscal and democratic deficits for England - will continue, although Burnham once mentioned 'tearing up' the Barnett Formula. But the UK Parliament always kow-tows to the fiercely exclusive Tiny Scotlanders and Walesians, and Burnham has hurried to reassure them that the privileges of the Barnett Formula will remain untouched. Out of England's over-stretched tax pot. 

Spend less on people in the most ethnically diverse UK nation, England, and let Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have a non-accountable say on its domestic legislation. After all, England is horrible, the Scots and Welsh nationalists are right in proclaiming that their own countries are saintly and oppressed by this evil country, and the overlord UK Parliament has a right to disadvantage and conceal its existence. Just call it 'Yookay' and hack it up.

Burnham wants an office in the North. The North of where? Well, he didn't mention it by name, he never does, but he obviously means England as Scotland has its own domestic parliament, higher per capita spending from the UK tax pot (Barnett Formula), a Scottish Minister in the UK Parliament, non-representative MPs in the UK Parliament helping pass legislation on England (West Lothian Question), and free prescriptions for millionaires. Wales has that too.

As mentioned, Lord Joel Barnett, creator of the Barnett Formula, later decried it repeatedly as unfair to people across England. Burnham tries to divide and rule by caricaturing southern and eastern England as 'haves' and the North as 'have nots'. In reality, the picture is far more nuanced, with appalling areas of poverty across the South and East. 

Andy plans to split England into opposing territories, North and South, which is odd as he stated in a 2010 interview that he was opposed to territorial politics.

Three of the poorest streets in England were found to be in Cambridge in recent years (English Indices).

Burnham, a Cambridge University graduate himself, is a totally silly divide and ruler.

Keep the UK Parliament gravy train going, continue to pander to nationalistic nonsense and greediness from Scotland and Wales (who are far from innocent in UK history) and sod the vast majority in England.

The UK's most ethnically diverse country by far.

A 2010 interview with Andy Burnham, in which he states he feels 'British' not English - not surprising, England has been subsumed in the so-called union for so long (and rejecting any notion of Englishness is his choice), and he was born in Liverpool (which is in England) which is near Wales (so?) and he has Irish forebears and 'links to Scotland'. Again, so? Andy said he liked the old national UK parliament arrangement, but the devolution genie was already out of the bottle on a national level, only England being denied (and discriminated against). So, Andy favoured (and still does) hacking England into expensive 'regions' (this notion was soundly rejected by the North East of England). His views are obvious: he has no affection for England, feels very kindly disposed towards the devolved 'nations', doesn't mind the West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula inflicting democratic and economic deficits on England's population - he has rushed to assure the 'nations' that their Barnett privileges will continue - and will do all he can to retain the highly discriminatory 'nations and regions'. Shows how much he cares for the poor in England, doesn't it? Or England as a country at all.

Andy has chuntered on about the class system, a bit of a chip on his shoulder, despite his own Cambridge University student tenure and being incredibly well heeled. The class system only exists in England, apparently, which of course it doesn't. But Andy happily condones having two classes of MPs at Westminster: those who vote on England's domestic legislation and are accountable to their electors. 

And those representing constituencies in the devolved 'nations', who are not accountable to the electorate in England. Democracy?

Andy bangs on about being of Irish descent 'with Scottish links', and not identifying as English because of that - so, in your view, it's all based on blood and soil, is it, Mr Burnham? Of course. In England, we have 'British' rammed down our throats.

There's no such thing as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish blood. DNA studies have taken all that nonsense apart, and waving Irish roots and 'Scottish links' as a flag of inclusivity and diversity is ridiculous. They have their own parliaments, higher public spending, and a non-accountable vote on England's domestic legislation.

Just above the poverty line Saleem in poverty-stricken Great Yarmouth pays nearly £10 per prescription item. Super rich Angus in Edinburgh or Cerys in Cardiff get them free.

This is how concerned Andy Burnham is, in reality, about class inequalities in UK politics.

Meanwhile, the UK gravy train of divide, rule and discriminate against England continues.

It's driven by anti-English/England attitudes, and the refusal of anybody in politics to speak for England. A lot of Scots and Welsh arguments could have been discussed years ago, and refuted where necessary. It never happened. So, England became the rump of the UK, the Demon Oppressor, with Scots and Welsh bile unchallenged, and more and more privileges for those tiny elites in those far less ethnically diverse UK countries.

Diversity, equity and inclusion?

When asymmetric national devolution kicked off in the late 1990s, England was reviled by Labour politician Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary (!) on the BBC. All the one-side, completely unchallenged bile from Scotland and Wales was trumpeted, and Straw described the English as 'very violent' and said England has subjugated the other countries.

I'm sorry, UK history is not a history of three saintly countries and one sinner country. Any objective viewer can see that. It is not a Marxist oppressed/oppressor narrative made real. The fact that the very ill-informed, rather bigoted Straw chose to revile the country he was elected in was even more remarkable. 

At this point, I saw the UK Parliament not as something which represented its constituent countries, which used to have Secretaries of State for the smaller countries as well as UK Parliament MPs, but as a judge and jury overlord. This didn't matter to Scotland and Wales, as they were approved and now had national devolution.

But for England, which had long been subsumed in the union, and was already often reviled by the Great and the Good...

So, the UK Parliament underfunded and dissed England, wrapped all English references in British/Britain, to appease the one-sided historical narratives from the tiny minorities in the UK countries elsewhere, and gradually set about dissolving it.

This shouldn't be possible, of course, as the UK is meant to be a union of countries, but the UK Parliament, only a few centuries old, has become terribly over confident to the point of arrogance and views itself as something in its own right. The UK is now Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, with England a residual lump, to be done with whatever UK politicians please.

Most UK politicians don't consider themselves English, but British (oddly enough, something separate, not simply a pan-UK nationality) and the notion of an inclusive, civic English national identity is fiercely resisted. The UK Government insists England is racist (despite it being by far the most ethnically diverse UK country), its flag not to be trusted and, all in all, that England, one of the countries which the UK Parliament is simply meant to represent, is a VERY BAD THING.

Recognising England would, of course, threaten the UK Parliament gravy train.

What Jack Straw said to the BBC in 2000 - demonizing England, which, of course, had no nationally representative government even then! Perfectly natural, surely, in light of non-accountable politicians from devolved UK nations voting on England's domestic legislation, and the Barnett Formula - awarding more money to less ethnically diverse UK nations largely out of the English tax pot, that England should be left questioning? Since then, UK politicians have kept their 'UK' gravy train safely on the rails by hardly ever mentioning England, confusing voters in England as to what is UK-wide legislation or simply English, and planning to hack it up, in deference to sanctimonious bigotry from Scotland and Wales.

Let's balance reality a bit by looking objectively at Scotland and Wales. Are we saying England has never done wrong? Not at all. But let's balance the picture:

Darien; the Darien bail-out; disproportionate Scots' activity in the British Empire; clan warfare; the fact that Wales was not a unified ancient nation but factions and kingdoms - fighting each other; the Celtic linguistic term from Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd, expanded into a fake ancient and exclusive ethnicity; the invention of the Poll Tax by Scotsman Douglas Mason and its implementation there a year early by its own Secretary of State; the partitioning of Ireland by a Welsh Prime Minister with avid backing of Protestant Scots; The Clearances - by the Scots themselves, not the English...

And Scots and Welsh Nationalists then climbed into their fake pulpits to denounce England as the sole UK wrong-doer.

And the UK Parliament went along with it for asymmetric national devolution, including the disgracefully one-sided statements of Jack Straw.

The UK Parliament says England is too big for a parliament, it would be over centralised. Nonsense. England is a moderately sized country and the UK Parliament actually contains non-accountable MPs voting on England's domestic legislation - the aforementioned West Lothian Question. This wouldn't change with tinpot, divisive regions. All England's legislation may have knock-on effects financially? Well, not all involves finances, and the Barnett Formula delivers a higher base rate to the devolved countries anyway.

There is no excuse for the denial of democracy to England. And the UK Parliament has no ethical right to dissolve a UK country.

We actually deserve a needs-based formula of financial uplifts across the UK, not based on one-sided myths of victimhood and moral and national superiority in the devolved UK countries.

Funnily enough, the British nationality is only a few hundred years old. It was intended as a pan-Britain identity at the time of the union with Scotland - the time of Empire. So, with the UK Government tying to instill 'British' values in everyone in England, what are they? Colonisation?

Some Scots Nationalists likes to argue that the oil off its coastline belongs to Scotland alone. Of course it doesn't. Scotland was bailed out by England after its disastrous Darien colonisation attempt, and then made a huge splash on the world stage and enormous amounts of dosh from the British Empire, being disproportionately active. Made possible by the union with England. 

And it has benefitted hugely from asymmetric national devolution, the Barnett Formula (from 1978) and another formula, Goschen, from 1888, giving it higher funding.

I'm afraid a union is a union, and that doesn't mean what's England's is also Scotland's, but a natural resource off Scotland's coastline is Scotland's alone.

And the oil receipts don't nearly cover Scotland's funding, and are the UK's  - unless we seriously start totting up debts on English and Scottish terms over the centuries of the union.

From the UK Parliament website: big money for Scotland. Meanwhile, England is to be hacked up into divisive, expensive tinpot regions, and still receive lower per capita spending (Barnett Formula) AND still suffer a democratic deficit via the West Lothian Question. You cannot demonise England and treat it as the UK residual, which the UK Parliament does, while sponsoring national fervour, ethnic-based bile and entrenched exclusiveness elsewhere in the nation. Nations and regions? In a union of four countries? 

In July 2026, Mr Burnham made a speech about his "No 10 North" project (it's the North of England, but Burnham doesn't call it that), beginning by stating that it would benefit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the regions of England. The regions of England came last. Well, England isn't a nation, is it? That says it all. And MORE benefit for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?!

But the last laugh may be on Burnham and the racist UK Parliament. By dividing England into regions with Mayors and other officials, it's highly likely there'll soon be a great reckoning about who has what - and that includes the democratic and fiscal privileges delivered to Scotland and Wales.

Destabilising England is, in our view, the fastest way to destabilise the so-called UK. It's been treated as the rump of the UK since devolution, and often before, with Wales and Scotland having Secretaries of State, and the Barnett Formula, dating back to 1978.

And, as previously mentioned, Scotland had the Goschen Formula, dating from 1888, to favour it financially before that.

Highlighting the true haves and have nots across Britain by regionalising England should provoke some interesting times, amidst lots of expensive new politicians and raised voices.

Domestic parliaments for all the UK nations and a vastly slimmed down UK Parliament for pan-UK legislation is the simple answer. Then England could decide on its own internal governance with no need for further devolution. Counties were rather good.

But the UK Parliament gravy train refuses to let go of England.

This way is going to be very messy and noisy.

Well, the UK Parliament has denied England for so long, it will be fun to watch as its chickens come home to roost.

For more on the realities of UK history, free of the "three saintly countries, one overbearing ogre country" distortion favoured by the likes of Mr Burnham and many 'UK' politicians, click here.