Debate on the Immigration Petition in the Commons (Part 2)

Part Two

By Hogarth

SNP – An Anti-Scottish Party – And Some Astonishing Comments From James Callaghan On Race

Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) 

“This is one of those occasions when I am pleased to get the chance to speak but wish it was in significantly different circumstances. I agree that we need to have a rational debate about immigration, but it is impossible to have one based on the petition submitted to us. It is perfectly in order for anyone to ask for an immediate end to immigration and all borders to be closed immediately, as the petition does—although, as has been pointed out, a border cannot be closed only one way; immigration can only be stopped in both directions—but the rest of the petition is a series of statements, most of which are demonstrably untrue. They are inflammatory, xenophobic, Islamophobic and just about every kind of phobic that someone would care to avoid having to be involved in, and that is not how we should conduct a debate about immigration.

“The debate on immigration has descended to that level because the kind of nonsense in the petition has been around for a long time and none of the major UK parties before we became a major UK party was prepared to deal with that in the way that they should, which is to stand up to it and tackle it head on, rather than allow it to become an argument about who can be tougher on immigration. I am bitterly disappointed that the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats did not take the chance to stand up and say, “This demonisation of foreigners, immigrants and people because of their religion or creed is utterly wrong…”

“Belatedly, I need to declare an interest. In fact, we all need to declare an interest, because one day not that long ago, we were all immigrants. This place operates on alien immigrant principles that were introduced by a bunch of illegal immigrants called the Normans. If we all go back far enough—some of us do not have to go back far at all—we are all descended from immigrants.”

Peter Grant’s statement comes as no surprise although the consequences of his party’s immigration policies would be sufficient, ultimately, to displace and replace the Scottish people in their entirety.  In Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Scottish people would eventually be reduced to minority status, as the English have been in their Capital, London, and now elsewhere.   Given that distinctive cultures come from distinctive peoples, Scottish identity and culture would become compromised;  at length, the distinctive Scottish people – after generations of continuity from a long and largely uninterrupted blood line of distinctive people – would become reduced to minority status, in enclaves initially and later in their cities and then throughout their homeland.

Traditionally, the SNP has been the most pro-immigration of all Westminster parties.   In 1968, the Labour Government rushed through the Commonwealth and Immigration Bill, to prevent an influx of Kenyan Asians, following ‘Africanisation’ by President Kenyatta.  It was passed within three days.

This occurred even before Enoch Powell had made his famous Rivers of Blood speech.   There was rare cross-party agreement in favour of the Bill, encompassing the agreement even of elements on the left, such as Renee Short.  Later that year, following the invasion of Prague by the USSR, Short uttered the words “I both love and admire the Soviet Union”.

Amongst the small number of MPs who voted against the immigration constraints (which included a small number of hand-wringing Conservatives) was the SNP MP Winfred Ewing – a so-called nationalist.   Another ‘nationalist’,  Gwynfor Evans of Plaid Cymru, also voted against the Bill.  The voting figures can be seen here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1968-02-27a.1241.0&s=immigration+act+1968#g1358.1

Let us now read what the Labour Home Secretary, James Callaghan, stated of the Bill in a memo dated 9^th April 1968, amidst concerns that up to 200,000 Kenyan Asians would enter the UK.

“It is sometimes argued that we can take a less serious view of the scale of immigration and settlement in this country because it could be, and currently is being, more than offset by total emigration. This view overlooks the important point that emigration is largely by white persons from nearly every corner of the United Kingdom, while immigration and settlement are largely by coloured persons into a relatively small number of concentrated areas. The exchange thus aggravates rather than alleviates the problem.”

“When we decided to legislate to slow down Asian immigration from East Africa we took our stand partly on the ground that a sudden influx of this kind . . . imposed an intolerable strain on the social services . . . But we were greatly handicapped in deploying our case and in rebutting criticism because we did not have hard information at our ready disposal.”

(http://www.newstatesman.com/when-labour-played-racist-card)

The facts above are worthy of consideration and remarkable by today’s standards.   First, in an age that preceded ‘political-correctness’, there could be no reason for the SNP MP to fear the wrath of the multicultural lobby.  Certainly, the Parliamentary Labour Party, for the overwhelming part, voted in favour of their Home Secretary.  The two ‘nationalists’ took an opposing line, which did not go unnoticed.

The SNP and the PC Plaid Cymru have since been incapable of drawing any distinction between the preservation of their own people and the simultaneous influx and establishment of substantial alien elements, particularly from non- European nations, which they wish to encourage.

It is also interesting to contrast Callaghan’s concerns about immigration and emigration balancing out.   This is Ukip’s argument:  the demographics are of no consequence.  Ukip policy is to exchange British emigrants with Third World immigrants.   That places them well to the left of the 1968 Labour Home Secretary.   Anyone uttering similar views to those of ex Home Secretary – and later Prime Minister – James Calaghan, in Ukip, would quickly find himself suspended as a Ukip candidate.

“WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS”

Peter Grant makes the naïve and fallacious argument, well-rehearsed by the left, that we are all immigrants.

The Scottish people may reasonably be defined as the sundry, kindred, Northern European tribes and linguistic groups who settled in the land and islands now known as Scotland and who sequentially intermingled with each other to create the people known as the Scots.   Since 1066 to 1948 – the date of the infamous British Nationality Act – the Scots remained a chain of distinctive people, uninterrupted by immigration.  They remain so today, with notable exceptions in Glasgow and elsewhere, less effected by immigration than many English regions.   The intermingling that occurred up to and including the Norman invasion was between kindred people.  The word Norman is a derivative of the word ‘Norseman’.

The American colonists were well aware of such distinctions.   The new American nation introduced strict immigration controls that restricted immigration to those of Northern European descent, in the interests of cohesion, compatibility, stability and the maintenance of their civilisation.   The white-only immigration policy, albeit eventually extended to all Europeans, was not lifted until 1964.    A similar policy remained in operation in Australia until 1975, for the same logical reasons.

———–

Referring to the Syrian refugees, Peter Grant stated in the debate:

“The United Kingdom takes 20,000 people. Who do we morally think we can tell to take the other 4,480,000? There are not places roundabout Syria that are stable enough to take those kind of numbers. That is why I welcome the Government’s moves so far. I am on the side of the bishops. The Government have not gone nearly far enough…”

This tells us all we need to know about this phoney nationalist.   Any of his forebears who settled in North America will have recognised that non- European immigration was incompatible with the maintenance of stability, cohesion, European culture, heritage, identity and the continuance of their civilisation.

But if the existing Scottish people are not worthy, in his party’s eyes, of preservation;  if Scottish identity, culture and heritage is not worthy of special protection, then it is must be – by deduction – no more than equal to that of the incomers from the Third World;   it might even be less equal.   Given the demographics and falling birth rates of indigenous Scots, it is clear that the SNP believes that Scottish identity should not be protected but compromised and, ultimately, extirpated, as has occurred to the Cockney population in East London.   We need only refer to what happened in Ancient Egypt to see how civilisations collapse and fall into decay when they are compromised by the arrival of distinctive peoples from elsewhere………..

Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

“I said in the immigration debate last week that my party acknowledges and is proud of, and prefers to emphasise, the tremendous contribution made by people who chose to make this country their new home. They make contributions to our public services, our economy, our culture and, most importantly to many of our citizens, our family lives.

Healthy population growth is important to Scotland’s economy. Some hon. Members have already mentioned the role that migration can play in tackling demographic challenges, so the Scottish Government’s economic strategy sets out to match average European population growth during 2007 to 2017 with the support of both increased healthy life expectancy and migration.

Migration can be part of the solution to the challenges we face. We will campaign for Government policy that reflects the needs and circumstances of Scotland’s economy and, indeed, those of the whole of the United Kingdom. We want a Government that recognise and are up front about the fact that migration is an important part of our future.”

This politically-correct nonsense speaks for itself but it is clear that the S’N’P, which owes its allegiance to its unelected mentors in Brussels, is complicit with the EU’s policy to balkanise and atomise the nation state.   Small nations, of course, can be more easily manipulated, exploited and bullied by the EU, especially when they have lost their focus, identity and cohesion.

 

Peter Grant SNP:

“As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, the Scottish Government are firmly of the view that the right kind of immigration, in what might be seen as quite large numbers, can have a very positive impact on Scotland’s economy.”

There we have it:  the ultimate displacement and replacement of the Scottish people, their culture, heritage and identity.    The same process has occurred in remarkably swift time in Sweden, whose social security system is cracking, where law and order is under strain and where criminality is at a level unprecedented.

When did Grant last visit Malmo to experience the consequences for the host communities of immigration, usually in working class districts:  criminality, rapes, muggings, drug-dealing, turf wars, knifings, gun-running and the general bedlam that has coincided with the immigration of recent years?

What, too, of the wage debasement caused by immigration, as tradesmen, skilled and unskilled labour are all undercut by Third World labour?

When labour shortages occur, the market rectifies the problem as the price of that labour is bid upwards until new supply, arising from training, rebalances the equilibrium, along with higher productivity.

Peter Grant must explain himself and his real objectives?   Or is he merely one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’?

As for his party, it is a fraudulent nationalist party:  it is a tartan bagpipe front organisation of anti-British, anti-Scottish, politically-correct, culturally Marxist subversives.