Forget the UKIP factor – Labour must keep Red Ed gagged if they want a chance of winning

NEVER rush to judgement was the dictum of Strangler Lewis, an old editor of my acquaintance and verily a legend in his own lunchtime.

Trouble was Strangler rarely heeded his own advice, too readily succumbing to impulsive, high-velocity outbursts, which often saw weighty Underwood typewriters heaved through his third-floor office window.

Fortunately at 2 a.m. passers-by were few, so whichever plate of glass in the Black Lubyianka – as the art deco building was dubbed by its hacks within – got shattered was hastily repaired and a maintenance crew despatched to sweep the debris off the pavement below, before the gendarmerie took an interest.

Despite the paper’s Right-leaning sentiments, Strangler’s attitude to politicians was ‘a plague on all their houses’, since he considered the Conservatives a meld of noblesse oblige country squires, stockbrokers on the make and part-time MPs-cum-QCs, Labour up to its gills in hock to union paymasters and the Liberals, as they were then, utterly irrelevant.

Had they been around in his day, Strangler should have been a natural UKipper. After all, he ran the Union Jack up a 30-foot flagpole on his front lawn each morning, which Mrs. Strangler ceremonially lowered at dusk.

Except Strangler had fierce disdain for political carpetbaggers and, I’m sure, would have cast Nigel Farage as one of them, heaping grave misgivings on the UKIP boss’s shark-like grin and bloke-in-the-boozer Vaudeville act.

The four-party politics that exists now – if you count the pious Greens, plus regional nationalists as a single, nuisance-value entity – would have posed a huge dilemma 40 years or more ago for the likes of Strangler, just as it does to today’s electorate.

ELECTION WRECKER: Farage's UKIP threatens to damage Labour as much as the Tories

PARTY POOPER: Farage’s UKIP threatens to damage the Labour Party as much as the Tories, but they still aren’t fancied to hold the balance of power in a future coalition

Because the threat the also-rans wield could be a wrecking ball to the chances of ‘Call-me-Dave’ Cameron’s Tories or Red Ed Miliband’s socialists winning outright victories and not having to schmooze fringe mobs into an uneasy coalition.

So much, then, for Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, which – for the foreseeable future, I’d wager – will see government continue to be run by the strongest single party, propped up by one of the weakest.

Hence, Britain again looks set fair for a two-party coalition come the general election next May and possibly a reprise of a Con-Lib Dem pact, which has soldiered on longer than I imagined and performed better than I expected.

Much credit for that goes to Nick Clegg’s lust for power.

What’s more, in my humble estimation, I think the British electorate would buy into another dose, albeit with Lib-Dem Treasury Secretary, Danny Alexander, replacing the discredited Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister.

This is regardless of the projection the Lib-Dems will be all but decimated next time out, their 56 seats reduced to a rump of about 17. Because even that should be enough for them to be willing coalition bed-mates again, providing the Tories emerge with the largest number of seats.

UKIP mavericks are tipped to gain about six constituencies, mainly in Thames delta towns, like Clacton, where Tory defector, Douglas Carswell, won nearly 60% of the vote in the October 9 by-election.

Probably a more eye-popping result, though, was the by-election that same day in Labour’s northern heartland of Heywood and Middleton, where the socialists squeaked home with a humbling 617 majority over UKIP, underlining Farage’s boast that his upstarts pose an equal threat to Miliband as much as Cameron.

Undoubtedly, the party of dissent – and their cheeky-chappy leader – has demonstrated the dangers it pose on all fronts, even if by-elections bring out the worst in a disgruntled electorate, who uses such opportunities to cane the major parties, then revert to type come a general election.

All the same, Cameron’s political machine is taking no chances in Rochester & Strood on November 20, where another Tory defector, Mark Reckless, hopes to become UKIP’s second MP.

Whereas they regarded Carswell winning Clacton as a foregone conclusion, given his local popularity, Rochester & Strood is altogether different territory for Tory strategists.

More affluent and less malleable to Farage’s blarney, Reckless faces the Conservative’s kitchen sink, plus its star performer – London’s much-admired, if eccentric mayor, Boris Johnson – being chucked at him.

Nonetheless, the bookies rate Reckless as 2/5 favourite. And if he does carry the day, it will force Cameron back to the drawing board, hatching fresh plans to out-UKIP Farage.

Labour’s problems are no less daunting. Apart from UKIP no longer being dismissed as a Tory-only hassle, their chief concern remains the credibility and popularity – or lack of it – of their leader.

Miliband’s rallying call at his conference speech last month fell like a lead balloon, leaving many of the party faithful at best bemused, at worst terrified.

MILI-BLAND: The Labour leader did little to convince he is the UK's Prime Minister-in-waiting

STUMPED BY A SARNIE: Even munching a bacon sandwich is a struggle for Miliband, which is another reason why so many voters have little faith in him as a UK Prime Minister

And that was after an ICM-Guardian poll reported Miliband’s ratings had crumbled from -25 to -39 points, with only 22% of voters saying he was ‘doing good job’. In contrast, Cameron’s slid from +2 to -5, but his leadership qualities still command most voters’ respect.

Not since Michael Foot, in 1983, has an opposition Labour leader registered such negativity with a general election looming.

And, at a time when the Milibandits should be a country mile ahead in the polls, a new Opinium survey for The Observer shows Labour and the Tories running neck-and-neck on 33% each, UKIP on 18%, the Lib-Dems floundering on 6% and the Greens on 4%.

Meanwhile, piling further misery on Labour is the nightmarish prospect that many of their 41 Scottish MPs might be culled by the resurgent Scottish Nationalists, now commanded by Nicola Sturgeon.

Labour, however, are sticking to the belief that if they can pull 35% of the vote, it should haul them over the finishing line first, but that hope appears to be fast fading.

With every vote counting, naturally a UKIP success in Rochester & Strood will be heaven sent.  And the more they can keep Miliband gagged – and away from embarrassing bacon-sarnie photo shoots – the better their chances.

For their part, the Tories must hope the spectre of the wimpy Miliband occupying 10 Downing Street will loom large in the electorate’s mind and deter many – even hard-core socialists – from opting for a Labour government.

All that’s certain is next May’s UK general election will be laced with intrigue and uncertainty.

But, for my money, the bookies odds of 4/1 on another Con-Lib Dem coalition look a good bet.

Why Labour’s Israel-bashing obsession batters Britain’s influence on the peace process

ONCE it was the far Right – a nasty rash of neo-Nazis, xenophobes and assorted morons with a racist grudge – plus rabid Arabists, who drove the anti-Israel agenda, especially when it provided a handy cloak to hide their anti-Semitism.

Of course, this motley horror show still manages to occasionally emerge from beneath its rock. But much of its Israel-bashing thunder has been hijacked by the hard Left, many of whom harbour an unhealthy obsession with demonising the only state in the madhouse of the Middle East where democratic sanity prevails.

Naturally, Israel is far from perfect. No multicultural, free society is, especially Britain’s.

And I, too, have issues with elements inside Israel’s present government, especially the Settler Movement, just as I have with certain members of the UK’s ruling coalition and, most certainly, the current US President.

However, I don’t blame Israel as a nation for the policies of some at its helm and I have only admiration for what its eight million citizens – including nearly two million Muslims, Druze and Christians – have accomplished, set against a backdrop of an unremitting, 66-year conflict they never sought.

MOTION MAN: Fist-waving MP, Grahame Morris, who compared Israel to the Nazi, was behind Labour's pro-Palestine Commons motion

MOTION MAN: Fist-waving Grahame Morris, who compared Israel to the Nazis, was the British MP behind Labour’s pro-Palestine Commons motion

Indeed, far from being the target of bloodlusting venom from its 350 million neighbours, the Jewish state offers them an object lesson in creativity, scientific achievement that includes a cure for Ebola, intellectual thought and justice.

Can you imagine, for instance, a Jewish judge in, say, Egypt, Syria or Iraq – where once-vibrant Jewish communities flourished long before the notion of Islam occurred to Mohammed – sending a Muslim leader to jail, as an Arab judge did in Israel, when he found former president, Moshe Katsav, guilty of rape.

This and innumerable, everyday instances of equality being exercised across all stratas of Israeli society, regardless of gender and sexuality, kill stone dead the odious lie of an ‘apartheid’ state. In fact, the majority of Arabs agree they enjoy more freedoms and benefits as Israeli citizens than they would in Muslim states and I see no queue of them at the border, lining up to become subjects of Palestine.

So those (mainly Labour) MPs, who aired the ‘apartheid’ slander – along with a compendium of slurs bordering on racism, like allusions to an all-pervasive ‘Jewish Lobby’ – in last Monday’s House of Commons debate on UK recognition of a Palestine state were talking unmitigated hogwash.

Sadly, all too many are gullible dupes, swallowing hook, line and stinker the deceits of the Palestinians’ devious PR machine.

Unsurprisingly, then, they parroted its mantra of ‘illegal settlements’, ‘atrocities in Gaza’ and ‘occupation’, with nary one addressing the theme of Arab intransigence in the peace processes – not to mention the countless times Yasser Arafat was offered and refused a viable state – or Hamas’s pledge to destroy Israel and world Jewry with it.

And, such is their appalling ignorance of Middle East history, not a voice from Ed Miliband’s Party of Togetherness mentioned Israel’s land-for-peace swaps with Egypt and Jordan or how these Arab nations purloined all that was meant to be Palestine – had the Arabs accepted UN partition in 1948 – until they waged and lost the 1967 Six Day War.

Meanwhile, even a smattering of Tories joined in the verbal onslaught, most notably Sir Alan Duncan, the former International Development Minister, who used UK taxpayers’ cash to help pay salaries, circa £2,000 a month, to Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails.

The small, but perfectly-formed hypocrite, who made millions from serving Arab oil interests, assumed the ‘moral high ground’ to back the motion, perhaps forgetting morality isn’t necessarily his forte.

Named and shamed in the MPs expenses scandal for claiming thousands to manicure his lawn – which, by his own admission, ‘could be considered excessive’ – even his property dealings have sometimes been, at best, iffy.

IN A MORAL MAZE: Ex-UK Aid Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was one of few Tories to back the pro-Palestine motion

IN A MORAL MAZE: Ex-UK International Development Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was one of few Conservatives to back the pro-Palestine motion

Apart from having to explain his rather ‘complex’ mortgage arrangements, it emerged that in 1992 Duncan lent an elderly next-door neighbour money to buy his 18th Century, Westminster council house under right-to-buy legislation.

The neighbour duly did so at a significant discount and sold it to…er, Alan Duncan.

But the motion – ‘This House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel’ and later amended to include ‘as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution’ – was a wholly Labour stunt and boycotted by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Proposed by Grahame Morris, who recently compared Israel to the Nazis, it passed with a predictable, overwhelming majority: 247 for, 12 against.

Basic arithmetic attest to the fact that of Britain’s 650 MPs, less than half attended the debate. And, regardless of the result, it was a shoddy gesture, non-binding on Prime Minister David Cameron, who is icily clear that only a negotiated, bilateral agreement can solve the Middle East’s most intractable dispute.

There is no denying, however, it was a hugely symbolic vote and a warning to Israel of perils to come, should Red Ed’s socialists win a majority in next May’s UK General Election.

BRITAIN'S GUILT: The UK shut the door to escape for millions of Holocaust victims, by barring them for Mandate Palestine

BRITAIN’S GUILT: The UK shut the door to escape for millions of Holocaust victims like these, by barring them from entering Mandate Palestine

But the Israelis are no strangers to British perfidy, because – bar the Balfour Declaration favouring a Jewish state in the Levant after World War One – the UK pursued a cynical, anti-Jewish/pro-Arab agenda from the 1920s onward under its League of Nations Mandate.

In fact, from a moral perspective, Britain’s actions in shutting the door to escape for millions of future victims of Hitler’s Holocaust before and during the World War Two, as well as callously preventing survivors from reaching Palestine until its Mandate ended in 1948, deserves opprobrium.

Ditto the Commons’ motion.

Shot full by ambiguity, it referred to ‘recognition of a Palestine state’ that doesn’t exist, lacks defined borders and whose racist leadership adamantly refuses to recognise its Jewish neighbour.

And, regardless of the latest sham of unity between Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah administration in Ramallah and Hamas’s Islamo-fascist terrorists – one already fraying at the seams – which bipolar entity does the motion recognise: the West Bank Palestine or the Gaza Palestine?

Meanwhile, though such showboating plays well to Labour’s vocal Muslim vote, far from advancing Britain’s influence in the peace process, the Israel-bashing Commons motion leaves an enormous dent in the UK’s credentials as an honest broker.

Forget IS and the Mid-East mess – Iran’s Artful Dodgers are the biggest threat to world peace

TO nobody’s surprise, the West continues to discover there’s little sanity amid the patchwork of barbaric, conjoined conflicts raging throughout the Middle East and telling the good guys from the bad is nigh on impossible.

At the root is a centuries-old schism between Islam two mainstreams, the Sunni and Shiite, a brooding volcano once capped by a succession of secular thugs – principally the Shah of Iran, Saddam in Iraq, Assad in Syria, Mubarak in Egypt and psychotic Gaddafi in Libya.

The Shah’s overthrow in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini’s ultras was the fuse that’s ignited today’s mayhem, since it signalled Shia Iran’s ambition to be the regional bullyboy, setting it on collision course with Saudi Arabia, champion of the Sunni cause.

Filthy rich, nepotistic and corrupt, for years the Saudis have been exporting their brand of hardline, Wahhabi Islam, while its Royals flew West to indulge in a few playful ‘distractions’. But, with a relatively miniscule population, the Kingdom, as Saudi is known, has had to fend off predators by buying Western protection with its only weapon – oil.

Inevitably, in this domain of feudal vendettas, sideshow clashes erupted – Saddam’s power-grab at Kuwait was a prime example, except the West let him off the hook on the proviso his bloodlust was confined to slaughtering his own folk.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? Iran took a very different view of what was agreed with the P5+1 in Geneva

DEAL OR NO DEAL? The devious Iranians deliver their nuclear ‘promises’ to the P5+1 – only to break four out of five of them

Years earlier, remember, the Butcher of Baghdad was urged and armed by the West to ensnare Iran in a war of attrition that wasted a million lives, before it hit the brick wall of stalemate.

In the world’s worst neighbourhood only the intractable Israel-Palestinian conflict provides a source of unity among the vengeful ‘frenemies’ and the Palestinians continue to be shamelessly exploited by their Arab brethren to this day.

Because, however gold-plated its historical and legal validity, even a tiny Jewish state can’t be countenanced, since it is a beacon of democracy and can-do creativity in a wilderness of ignorance, anchored in 7th Century inertia.

And however sneakily superb the Palestinians’ porkie-peddling PR machine is at painting them as eternal victims, until they stop provocations and get their heads round the benefits of the peace dividend, an independent Palestine never deserves to materialise.

Meanwhile, for all its barbarity, even the so-called Islamic State is a sideshow, creating fear out of all proportion to its size.

So, if you imagine this motley bunch of monsters is a long-term threat to world order, you ain’t seen nothing yet if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.

And this is where I owe Tehran’s turbaned tyrants an apology.

NO PEACE IN OUR TIME: Hitler greets UK Premier, Neville Chamberlain, in 1938 to deliver a tissue of lies that triggers WW2

NO PEACE IN OUR TIME: Hitler greets UK Premier, Neville Chamberlain, in 1938 to deliver a tissue of lies that triggers WW2

Previously, I’ve dubbed the Iranian leadership ‘fanatical, mad mullahs’, but now I realise that’s a slight misrepresentation.

Certainly they’re fanatical zealots, religious and militaristic, as evidence by their fulsome support of the Assad dynasty’s butchery in Syria’s civil war and funding Hezbollah’s terror grip of Lebanon.

However, allusions to them being daft are…well, daft – because they’re crazy like a fox.

In fact, far from being absconders from La-La Land, they are adroit truth – and probably spoon – benders, masters of skulduggery, who, if caught with a smoking gun over a corpse while nobody else is within miles, would swear on a stack of Korans some bloke on a pushbike did it, then scarpered.

Iran makes no secret of its lust to go nuclear…using the fissile material only for ‘peaceful purposes’, you understand. So perish the thought their top-secret development facilities, some buried hundreds of metres underground, are getting tooled up with evermore spinning centrifuges to make an A-bomb.

Which is why a body called the P5+1 – that’s the toothless US, the gutless EU, the supine UK, the blustering French, along with every dictator’s good buddies, Russia and China – has been trying to sweet talk Tehran into reversing its ban on unwelcome callers from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who’ve been denied access to Iranian nuclear plants since 2005.

Drowning in oily black gold, Iran needs nuclear power like Donald Trump needs to borrow a dime for a cup of Starbuck’s coffee.

In a scam to lift biting, economic sanctions, last December Iran’s Artful Dodgers conned the P5+1 with the vacuous vow of solemnly agreeing to put the brake on its dreams of a nuclear Armageddon.

A-BOMB FACTORY: Iran's nuclear facility at Parchin, where a mystery explosion killed two scientists last week

A-BOMB FACTORY? Iran’s nuclear facility at Parchin, where a mystery explosion killed two scientists last week

The deal, agreed in Geneva and labelled the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), gave the mullahs six months to comply with UN Resolution 1929, which demanded Iran comes clean about its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and allows IAEA watchdogs back in.

Maybe something got lost in translations, because Tehran’s take on the pow-wow was they weren’t for letting anyone nosey around their nuclear hidey-holes, but they’d accept the five plonkers+one’s kind offer to boost petroleum exports.

Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Khamenei, declared, ‘The Islamic Republic of Iran’s stances are the direct opposite to this [proposal to reduce operating centrifuges] and Iran will by no means accept what the Americans want to impose on this country.’

As I wrote at the time of the Geneva talks, ‘After a decade of deceit, deception and time-wasting, the world’s premier purvey of terror has won the most decisive war of words with the West since Hitler convinced Neville Chamberlain, back in 1938, his intentions towards Czechoslovakia were entirely honourable and pigs could fly.

Ten months on, Iran is still playing hide and seek with the UN’s watchdogs and racing towards the nuclear threshold, despite glitches, like an mysterious explosion last week, which killed two scientists at a military base in Parchin, where the IAEA is convinced nuclear weaponry is being made.

Talks continue to stutter on, but a month ago the nuclear watchdog issued a blistering report, condemning Iran for ‘stonewalling’, failing to meet four of five obligations demanded by the UN Security Council and destroying evidence in a way that ‘likely further undermined the IAEA’s ability to conduct effective verification.’

Meanwhile, Iran’s Deputy Oil Minister, Mansour Moazzami, boasts, ‘Our volume of crude oil and gas exports has doubled.’

So no guessing who’s got the penny and the bun – and why all other rumpuses in the Middle East are sideshows in comparison to the threat of an atomic Armageddon, courtesy of the not-so-mental mullahs of Tehran.

If the UN is no longer fit for purpose, then the West must invent something better

UNLESS you’re a news junkie, probably you didn’t notice the United Nation’s General Assembly was in session last month, with world leaders piling into New York as if it were Blue Cross Day in Macy’s sales.

A sombre Barack Obama chaired the fatuous waffling show and so much extraneous CO2 was expended, it probably blew a chasm the size of Alaska in the ozone layer.

As was his privilege, the keynote speech was made by the US President – greyer, gaunter now and a far cry from the jaunty, upbeat figure of global optimism he cut when first addressing the gathering in 2009.

Way back then, he promised ‘a new era of engagement with the world’.  And – lo and behold! – we have it…just not quite the one he envisaged.

By ‘engagement’ Obama meant peace and conciliation, not the vicious, internecine, barbaric collision of religious credos, clashing cultures and political dogmas blighting almost the entire Middle East and swathes of Africa, not to mention Ukraine or the existential threat to the West from jihadis returning home from DIY decapitation courses, courtesy of Islamic State (IS).

Though not entirely all down to his inertia, no-drama Obama bears huge culpability for ignoring how the layer cake of conflicts was rising, not that such an egotistical poseur would have the humility to fess up.

After all, only a year ago he bragged to the General Assembly (GA), ‘The world is more stable than it was five years ago.’

That was either self-delusion or purblindness at its worst.

Because, as some of his once closest advisers have testified – none more so than former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton – Obama’s been hands-off when he should have been full-on, a telegenic prop not a globo cop, a dithery camp follower rather than a trailblazer.

HANDS-ON AT LAST! Obama tells the UN General Assembly he's awake to the evil of Islamic State

HANDS-ON AT LAST! Obama tells the UN General Assembly he’s awake to the evil of Islamic State

Now, after six years of comparatively moribund inactivity, even the peacenik president has finally accepted that actions speaks louder than platitudes and he’s taken on IS in its own backyard.

‘There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil,’ he told the Assembly, showing real fire in his gut for once. ‘The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.’

Quite where what some describe as the Third Iraq War leads to is anyone’s guess, though at least a smattering of Arab nations have overcome their timidity to share the US-led coalition’s heavy lifting.

However, this isn’t about Obama’s flaws, IS carnage, sneaky Iran’s march to the nuclear weapon threshold or even the intractable Israel-Palestinian brouhaha.

It’s about the ineptitudes and blatant, anti-Western bias of the UN, bar some of its useful spin-offs, such as the World Health Organisation and UNESCO.

As the disorganisation celebrates its 69th birthday this month, how the founding fathers – notably President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – must be whirling in their graves in disgust at how their vision of a body intended to bring peace to a devastated, post-war world has begotten a corpse of grubby self-interest and accusatory spite.

Of the 51 original members, only the Soviet Bloc, China and the former Yugoslavia – all WW2 allies – weren’t democracies, even if the probity of some others at that time (e.g. Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama and South Africa) was contestable.

Nonetheless, all were signatories to the UN Charter and the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which ‘reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights and dignity, and worth of the human person’, while committing all member states to promote ‘universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.’

Fine words, noble aims; but fast-forward nearly seven decades and what have we…193 states, a disreputable number of whom couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss for the club rules apropos human rights, gender equality or inter-faith tolerance.

So, only at the UN can indictable tyrannies, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Sudan – with their penchants for headbanging religious extremism, financing terror and judicial codes beyond the barbaric – share the civilised world’s lustre.

DISUNITED NATIONS: The UN is now a pale shadow of what its creators envisaged 69 years ago

DISUNITED NATIONS: The UN is now a pale shadow of what its creators envisaged 69 years ago

Meanwhile, whatever is the allure of IS’s Islamo-fascist paradise is beyond me. But I fully endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s overview, as he told to the GA last week, ‘The Nazis believed in a master race; the militant Islamists believe in a master faith.’

Led by a succession of UN Secretaries General unfit to be short-order chefs, the liberal democracies now find themselves victims of a naïve misbelief their tools of egalitarian governance were beckoning to be adopted by states where people power was zilch or, if it dares show itself, got brutally crushed.

The so-called Arab Spring finally laid waste that fantasy.

Yet now, once again, the altruistic West is expected to intervene in a Middle East bloodbath, albeit at the behest of a slumbering American leader only just awoken to reality.

Strikingly, Obama didn’t bother asking UN permission, before sending his fighter jets to pulverise IS.

And maybe former Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, explains why, noting, ‘No organisation embodies as many dreams, yet provides so many frustrations [as the UN]. For most of its history, the Security Council has been the prisoner of great-power manoeuvring; the General Assembly a theatre of empty rhetoric; the Economic and Social Council a largely dysfunctional irrelevance; and the Secretariat, for all the dedication and brilliance of a host of individuals, alarmingly inefficient.’

Now many sage voices believe there is a critical need for a serious appraisal of the UN’s purpose and cost – a thwacking US$30-bn per annum, the tab mainly picked up by American and European taxpayers.

Because, after nearly 70 years, it has degenerated into a shambling old buffer with exorbitant tastes, its ‘halo effect’ dimmed by age, scandal, nepotism and corruption.

Hence, an idea being touted is for the UN to be evicted from its palatial tower overlooking New York’s East River and pack it off somewhere more in kilter with its skewered ethos – Doha and Khartoum have been mentioned.

Then, maybe, a Western-leaning Organisation of Democratic Nations – even if it accommodates China and Russia on the basis they are political and economic powerhouses – can emerge, thus checkmating the preposterousness of a Third World tail wagging the First World dog.

Only then might it dawn on the post-medieval despots that the West has had a bellyful of their inanity and insanity, and they should dump their self-inflicted woes in their own lap, not ours.

Answering the ‘English Question’ is the key to Cameron staying on as Britain’s PM

WHISPS of highland mist still swirl over Scotland’s great referendum result – and will continue to do so for some considerable time, in my humble estimation – but glimmers of clarity are breaking through the haze.

Possibly the harshest lesson from it goes out to the Catalans, Basques, Bretons, Cornish and any of the European Union’s minor players and it is: if you’ve any pipedreams of secession,  Brussels will blow them to smithereens.

On the lighter side, rumours Prince Franz of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart dynasty, will replace The Queen as Scotland’s monarch have been, well scotched, so to speak, and – three cheers! – Piers Morgan is leaving Britain (or so he said).

The unctuous chat-show host promised he’d shove off as his personal thank-you if the No vote prevailed. It did, so I suggest Rockall would be a fitting destination, since it’s uninhabited and he can talk to himself all day long and discover what we all know: he’s a snotty, egotistical bore.

Other oddball news: CNN’s exit poll called the referendum result 58% to 52% in favour of Yes. Not only a wildly inaccurate projection, it casts doubt on Americans ability to master simple percentages – unless, that is, 5.5 million folk do comprise 110% of Scotland.

Meanwhile, Labour leader, Ed Miliband, apparently represents a Scottish constituency in Doncaster North (yes, you heard it right).

FINGER PAINTING: But Miliband's picture of himself as a British PM didn't inspire Labour's faithful in Manchester last week

FINGER PAINTING: But Miliband’s picture of himself as a British PM didn’t inspire Labour’s faithful in Manchester last week

The Yorkshire town was ceded to Scotland more than 900 years ago as part of the Treaty of Durham, after King David pillaged large areas of northern England and Doncaster remained in Scottish hands for 21 years, until Henry II reclaimed it in 1157.

The treaty, however, was never formally revoked, which will come as a thunderbolt to many proud Tykes I know, who’d always believed they were inhabiting God’s Own County, not some Celtic Gibraltar.

Absurd as this situation may seem, though, it might do Ed a power of good. As the representative of an ostensible Scottish constituency in England, he’ll still be able to vote, if – as that semi-Jock, David Cameron, has threatened – Scots MPs in Westminster will be barred from voting on matters affecting only the English.

This, you see, is the Prime Minister’s canny solution to the arcane West Lothian Question, as posed by Left-wing firebrand, Tam Dalyell, the then Labour MP for the Scottish seat.

In a 1977 House of Commons debate on devolution, he asked, ‘For how long will English MPs tolerate at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics, while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?’

That idiosyncrasy has assumed fresh gravitas, as the Scottish Parliament is poised to receive extensive new powers – including setting its own levels of income tax and VAT – so Cameron has delegated sorting out the ‘English Question’ to his ex-Foreign Minister, William Hague, and a draft bill is due by January 25, aptly Robbie Burns Night.

Legislation can then be passed before next spring’s UK General Election.

Behind this haste to beat the May 7 polling deadline lies a fiendish Tory plot, one that’s left Miliband ambushed and outraged,  casting a shroud over the Labour’s Party annual knees-up, last week in Manchester.

A nobbled Ed complains Cameron is ‘playing politics’ following the Scottish No victory, but isn’t that exactly the rough, old trade both chose to follow.

WRONG CALL: According to CNN, Scotland's Yes voters were about to win the referendum 58%-52%

WRONG CALL/MUDDLE MATHS: According to CNN, Scotland’s Yes voters were about to win the referendum 58%-52%

Miliband’s dread is if Labour wins only a narrow majority in the next parliament, thanks to retaining its 40 MPs north of the border, he’ll be a stymied, partial PM, his writ on domestic policy extending no further than England (that’s presuming Welsh and Northern Irish MPs also get the block put on them).

Additionally, the ploy could outflank UKIP, the self-styled English liberation army, even if it forces a constitutional crisis the like of which a country that doesn’t even boast a written constitution has never seen.

Unsurprisingly, Conservative MPs – especially the unhinged, Eurosceptic fringe – are salivating like rabid dogs over the prospect of English votes for English laws, since all but nine of Cameron’s current crop of 304 represent constituencies in England against Labour’s total of 256 spread across the UK.

Nor are some Labourites blind to the idea of ‘freedom’ for England, a question Miliband dodged 13 times on last Sunday’s BBC1 Andrew Marr show.

Former minister, Ben Bradshaw, called for the party to ‘grasp the nettle’ of English home rule, adding there was an ‘innate and accurate feeling’ in the country that the ‘imbalance is unfair.’

Meanwhile, most Tories also want to see an end to the Barnett Formula or block grant, another piece of hoary, esoteric legislation that leaves the average voter utterly bamboozled.

As Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1974 to 1977, Joel Barnett – an accountant by trade and now Lord Barnett of Heywood and Royton – was Denis Healey’s bagman in the Callaghan government and tasked with the job of adjusting the amount of Whitehall largesse doled out to the UK’s four regions.

I won’t trouble you with the gobbledygook of the Formula, since, like me, you’d suddenly be overcome with the desire to have a siesta or commit hara-kiri. The net result, though, is Scotland receives over £1,600 per head more than England and even the now ancient peer admits it’s unfair and should be scrapped or revised.

OCH AYE TO DONNY: According to history, Doncaster - Miliband's parliamentary seat - is still part of Scotland

OCH AYE TO DONNY: Legally, according to historical treaty, Doncaster, Yorkshire – Miliband’s parliamentary seat – is still part of Scotland

Cameron says he won’t touch it. But, should his stewardship extend beyond 2015, my bet is he’ll face a full-blow revolt from his own backstabbers if it isn’t at least tinkered with.

What there is no escaping, however,  is the notion of federalism taking root in the minds of British voters, who are fast concluding all regions of the UK can achieve more for them if they have governments or assemblies to fight their personal corner.

Labour, the midwife of devolution, is none too chuffed about the prospect and Miliband studiously avoided it when addressing the faithful last Wednesday in what should have been a rousing, final, pre-election call to arms.

In a 78-minutes long speech, so insipid it made Gordon Brown appear positively charismatic, Red Ed concentrated almost solely on the National Health Service and – by his own, embarrassed admission – there were too many glaring, policy omissions

But he’s really a highly cerebral, decent bloke, who’d make a great Prime Minister, Labour insiders insist.

The problem is he has less than eight months to convince voters of that. And, so far, many fear – rather than welcome – the prospect.

Bruiser Brown saves the peace of the Union, but Cameron and Miliband go to war

SO you though it was all over – Squire Cameron magnanimous in victory and a crestfallen Alex Salmond falling on his sword as First Minister and Nationalists’ clan chieftain, after No voters won by a convincing 10% majority to keep Scotland British.

But, if you imagine business would return to usual, you’d be daydreaming. Because the ‘afters’ of the Scottish referendum are already rumbling. And, what’s more, they’ll only worsen.

Salmond’s departure – he’ll quit in November at the SNP conference, though remain a member of Scotland’s parliament – was entirely predictable, even though he’d always denied defeat would force him to stand down.

However, the wee man was going nowhere until he put the boot into Cameron and Labour leader, Ed Miliband, vowing he’d ‘hold their feet to the fire’ if they didn’t deliver on the ‘staying home’ prezzies they’d promised if the Scots rebuffed independence.

The problem is Cameron immediately let the cat out of his goodie-bag, saying concessions would  be tied to new rights for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, too…one of which would bar Scottish MPs in Westminster voting on English matters – answering the so-called West Lothian Question.

Miliband is understandably furious, because, should he win next May’s general election, what use will his 40 Jocks be in the House of Commons if he can’t legislate for the whole UK?

And there was me thinking the acrimony would be largely confined to north of the border, between the Yea and Nay camps.

NO VOTE STAR: Unionists were in panic until ex-PM Gordon Brown entered the fray

NO VOTE STAR TURN: Unionists were in panic until ex-PM Gordon Brown entered the fray and saved their day

The last fortnight of campaigning strongly suggested that, as the hustings degenerated into the bitterest, nastiest and most vindictive clash in modern, political history.

Many commentators claim the pivotal moment came in the second debate between the cocky, would-be laird of Scots and Better Together leader, Alistair Darling. Broadcast by the BBC, to my mind the audience were so brazenly pro-Yes, they sounded like the Nats’ vision of their promised tartan army.

Having been done up like a stuffed haggis in the earlier TV joust, Salmond turned the rematch into the verbal equivalent of a Saturday night brawl in a Sauchiehall Street boozer, as the quietly articulate Darling was outshouted by the baying mob.

From here on in the opinion polls went haywire – one overturning a No lead of 20-odd points into a Yes edge of plus six – as did many Nats’ nutters, intent on making the streets no-go areas for No proponents.

Melodramatically draped in saltire flags, pride and prejudice – against the despised English – were the home rulers’ battle cries and anyone defying the Braveheart call branded unpatriot.

So pro-No faithful were harried and harassed, their meetings disrupted by gobby hecklers; Union sympathisers were cowed into keeping shtum; Miliband was forced to abandon a walkabout in Edinburgh; and, as threats peppered the air, Respect MP, George Galloway – no cringing violet when vitriol is flying – claimed he was ‘promised a bullet.’

‘This is Salmond’s Scotland,’ said the firebrand defender of Islam. ‘He’s responsible for this hysteria, but we have to keep hatred and violence out of this debate.’

Yet, despite the eyes of the world watching, any condemnation of the ruffians in his ranks was absent from Salmond, a man whose mouth rarely shuts.

YES-TERDAY'S MAN: A dour Alex Salmond concedes his independence pipedream has gone up in smoke

YES-TERDAY’S MAN: A dour Salmond concedes his independence pipedream has gone up in smoke and says he’s quitting as First Minister of Scotland

Truth be told, winning at any cost was all that mattered to his Team Scotland. And, if it meant gloves off and Queensbury Rules be damned, anyone was fair game, especially the BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson.

Allegations of intimidation came thick and fast from those in ‘fear of the consequences’ from the Little Scotlanders of the SNP government.

‘Stuff and nonsense,’ blustered Salmond, continuing, in the best traditions of a snake-oil salesman, to flog a panacea for all Scots’ ills, despite every shred of evidence contradicting his evermore outlandish claims.

Inflated with braggadocio, the First Minister brushed aside petty-fogging details, like the Bank of England vetoing an Anglo-Scottish sterling zone, no automatic entry into the European Union – underscored on Tuesday again by Spain – and his wee army being barred from NATO.

All Tory-orchestrated phooey, insisted Salmond, as billions flooded out of his future Xanadu, financial institutions made plans to scarper over Hadrian’s Wall, while retail bosses warned Scots faced skyrocketing prices in the event of independence.

But, while Salmond’s glib claims that what lay ahead was a Celtic Norway – egalitarian, inclusive, environmentally green, business-friendly and a bastion of peace – resonated with a sometimes volatile, mainly male constituency, women proved more sanguine.

Worried about prices and jobs, the lasses weren’t for reeling blindly into the great unknown and neither were many of the bairns, fresh-faced 16 and 17-year-olds, handed the vote by Salmond on a bet they’d back him.

NO TO YES: Pro-Union fans celebrate their great referendum victory

NO TO SAYING YES: Pro-Better Together fans jubilantly celebrate their great referendum victory

They, too, were fearful, since many saw their futures south of the border, as millions of Scottish migrants had during three centuries of Union.

Salmond’s game was probably up a week ago, but it’s impossible to pinpoint the exact time when canny heads overcame passionate hearts.

That Scotland came so close to secession, however, should be an object lesson to the smug, Westminster elite, who only awoke last month to danger signals flashing red for the two years since Cameron gave Salmond a free hand to call the shots.

Why, for instance, wasn’t the big question ‘Do you want to stay in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?’ instead of ‘Do you want an independent Scotland?’

As Sky TV pundit, Adam Boulton noted, ‘Saying yes is a lot easier than justifying saying no.’

And why – as many MPs ask – did the Prime Minister give Scotland’s chief mischief-maker so long to get his ducks in order, when a quick plebiscite would have guaranteed the Unionists an easier fight?

A further query exposes yet more Establishment folly: why was Darling, the last Labour Chancellor and a highly cerebral nice guy, tasked with taking on a bumptious tub-thumper like Salmond?

Fortunately for the Three Stooges – Cameron, his Lib-Dem sidekick, Nick Clegg, and geeky Miliband – cometh the moment, cometh the man, even if he was yesterday’s man.

It was only when that old bruiser, Gordon Brown, took a grip on the panicky Yes camp and infused real passion into it that traditional, but wavering Labour voters were hauled back from the brink of putting their Xs in the Yes box.

Britain has much to thank the failed Prime Minister for keeping the Union together and however good a bruiser Salmond is, he’s savvy enough to realise he more than met his match in Brown…and it was time to quit.

Why the UK repels all boarders from the Euroland of no borders

AFTER losing Calais – England’s last possession in France – in 1558, just before a lethal dose of flu did for her notoriously bloody reign, Queen Mary I bemoaned, ‘When I am dead, you will find Calais engraved upon my heart’.

British monarchs aren’t often remiss at losing things. That said, fumbling King John dropped the crown jewels in The Wash, while Britain lost its American colonies under George III and Lord North was forced to quit as Prime Minister (David Cameron take note if the Scots vote ‘Aye’ in Thursday’s referendum).

Meanwhile, for four-and-a-half centuries Calais hasn’t featured on UK plc’s bucket list… until now. And it’s not that we want it back – it’s the French who want us back.

Not, I hasten to add, to repossess our ancient toehold in continental Europe, but to help stem a near floodtide of illegal immigrants using the port as a springboard for cross-Channel flits to what they perceive as the Eldorado of Ingleterre.

A dozen years ago, when a similar crisis exploded over the refugee camp at Sangatte, the French government shut it and disperse the mainly Kosovan occupants besieging the Eurotunnel entrance.

However, that typical example of quick-fix, Gallic short-termism was no solution to the challenge of what to do with displaced people from greatly afflicted, far-off lands, believing only the West – especially Britain – offered hope and salvation.

Hence, all France achieved was to move the problem a few kilometres down the coast where it resurfaced in Calais.

GATECRASHERS: Angry asylum-seekers and illegal migrants try to storm a barrier at Calais

GATECRASHERS: Angry asylum seekers and illegal migrants try to storm a barrier at Calais

So now ugly, daily scenes there see wannabe migrants – estimated at 1,500 and mostly Eritreans, Somalis, Sudanese and Afghans – try to clamber aboard lorries, caravans, booze-cruise vans and even into the boots of tourists’ cars, desperate to bid au revoir to France and hello to Britain.

Pouring in at an accelerating rate, they are overwhelming police, infuriating once sympathetic locals and fuelling a far-Right backlash.

Meanwhile, despite advanced detection technology – including carbon dioxide and heart-beat sensors, plus sniffer dogs – each day the situation worsens and 10 to 15 migrants evade the security cordon and make it through.

In their frenzied lust for freedom, the stateless ones have also refined their tactics. Last week, at least a hundred stampeded through the port, overwhelming guards and forcing one ferry to pull up its ramp and stop loading vehicles.

Freight trucks are the prime target. En route to the embarkation quays, they are pelted with stones to slow them down, so escapees can more easily scramble inside or beneath.

Truckers, who face hefty fines in Britain if caught with migrants hiding in their cargo bays, are retaliating, many now using refrigerated vehicles with stronger walls and padlocked doors.

‘But such lorries are more expensive to buy and run,’ complained a Turkish driver.

As Calais – which sees 12 million tourists and 1.9 million trucks pass through each year – hunkers down under siege, it, too, is counting the cost.

UK MUST PAY: Local mayor, Natacha Bouchart says Calais's problem is caused by Britain's 'soft' welfare state

UK MUST PAY: Local mayor, Natacha Bouchart, says Calais’s problems are caused because Britain is ‘too soft’ 

And its authorities are in no doubt about who should bears responsible for that: Britain.

Mayor Natacha Bouchart says, ‘We want the UK Government to think about the its rules, which are possibly the best in Europe for immigrants. Britain must be less soft.’

That’s why she wants the UK to foot the £12M bill for security her council pays, without a euro’s assistance from the French government or Brussels.

In actuality, Britain has contributed £3M to tighter controls at Calais and Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, has offered to send 20 kilometres of 3.3 metre-high steel barriers, recently used at the NATO summit in Wales

The British government, he points out, also takes a tough line on illegal immigrants, denying them the right to rent homes, open bank accounts or obtain driving licences.

Still, Madam Bouchart’s anger is understandable. She’s lumbered with someone else’s problem and has enough of her own, running a town of 75,000 citizens, where unemployment is soaring.

While there is no denying the world is seeing a mass shift in demographics, the mayor misses the point: the EU’s Schengen Agreement – from which Britain opted out – renders Euroland practically borderless.

Therefore it’s entirely possible for sinister people traffickers to transport their human cargoes thousands of miles, through several conjoined states, without ever encountering a frontier post.

Schengen was meant to be a pillar of freedom, whereby citizens could travel across the EU unhindered by visa checks. But, its theory long ago parting company from reality and the treaty has become a millstone round the EU’s neck.

Since the European Court of Human Rights bans nations from returning shiploads of illegals back to whence they came, many states on Euroland’s periphery cynically play pass the asylum seeker to their next-door neighbour.

Italy and Greece comprise two main gateways into Europe from Africa and Asia.

Yet, instead of processing incomers on arrival, as the 1990 Dublin Convention demands, both tacitly usher the unwanted away, hinting Britain and Germany might be more conducive destinations.

RETURN TO SENDER: Lord Michael Howard, former UK Interior Minister, says countries must process immigrants where they land in the EU

RETURN TO SENDER: Lord Michael Howard, former UK Interior Minister, says countries must process immigrants where they land in the EU

Sharing the mayor of Calais’s frustration, former Tory leader Lord Michael Howard last week noted, ‘The general principle that every member state of the European Union has subscribed to is that people fleeing persecution should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.’

At least during Howard’s term as Home Secretary (Interior Minister) in the 1990s there was accord that Britain would repatriate asylum seekers who’d managed to cross the Channel back to France, where their applications for sanctuary would be assessed.

The French eventually wearied of this ‘return-to-sender’ policy, which was why, in 2012, the then president, Nicholas Sarkozy, threaten to ditch Schengen and all the unforeseen, unintended consequences it’s thrown up.

Now, only the Europrats of Brussels can resolve the problem, either by demanding EU states take full responsibility for policing the desperate souls when they fetch up on their shores or by beefing up border checks, irrespective of what Schengen says.

My guess is they’ll do neither. So Britain will continue to repel all boarders and Calais will remain an expensive open prison for the great stateless ones and dispossessed.