Our Alternative Asylum and Refugee Policy Ep 143. 18 June 2025

Alistair McConnachie of pro-UK unionist campaign group and think tank, A Force For Good (AFFG), and viewers discuss:
- Welcome.
- "Scotland 2050" Conference.
- The extraordinary pay rates for Scottish MSPs.
- SNP blocks funding for a Welding School!
- Scotland's block grant is rising to the highest ever, since devolution began.
- Our Alternative Asylum and Refugee Programme, to replace the UN Refugee Convention.
- GUEST author Will Podmore: Topics include: Industry in the UK; Keir Starmer's democratic mandate; do the politicians care about British industry; "safe" countries and why France won't take them back; who are in the Small Boats?; Will's books, "Capability Britain" and "Brexit: The Road to Freedom" on Amazon; the Elites never accepted the Brexit result.
- Our Crowdfunder is asking for an amount equivalent to 1.5% of Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes's annual salary, link below.

PLEASE CAN YOU HELP OUR EFFORTS at our British Summertime Crowdfunder: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/summer2025

REFERENCE
Alistair McConnachie, "A New Asylum and Refugee Programme" (17-6-25)
https://www.aforceforgood.uk/single-post/alternative-asylum-prog

TO HEAR ABOUT our EVENTS, PLEASE SIGN-UP for our FORTNIGHTLY EMAILS https://www.aforceforgood.uk/sign-up

Please hit the Thumbs Up Button if you like what we say! 

And please Subscribe to this Podcast channel. It really helps spread the pro-UK word! 

DONATE 
If you like what we're doing, please consider becoming a monthly Union Supporter donor (with rewards) at https://www.aforceforgood.uk/union-supporters

MERCH STORES
Our Website Shop
https://www.aforceforgood.uk/shop-1

Our Tee-Shirts, Hoodies, and Mugs at
https://a-force-for-good.creator-spring.com

This is the 143rd episode of "Good Evening Britain" broadcast on Wednesday 18th June 2025.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Good Good clicked the appropriate button for everybody. What shall
we speak about for sending your comments? What would the
guys on TikTok like us to talk about? And we
will make an effort at that send in your comments.

(00:24):
The first thing that I want to talk about is firstly,
at seven point thirty, we have a guest which is
going to be the longtime friend of the show and
author Brexit, author of Capability Britain for a country that
works and also breaksit the road to freedom. I'm talking

(00:51):
about no less a man than Will hood More and
Will's going to be our guest. He's been the guest
on the show several times before. He's going to be
at seven point thirty.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Before then, we're going to talk about various things, but
we're also going to speak about our new asylum and
refugee program. You know, we've been big here at a
Force for Good saying that the United Kingdom has to leave,
it has to leave the UN Refugee Convention because that's

(01:26):
what encourages all the small boats. And once all the
small boats are here, it's what prevents us from getting
them to go back again. To put it diplomatically, and so.

Speaker 2 (01:48):
And so.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
We're going to be looking at the program that we
have created, which has been basically a year in the making.
We really do down in the last fortnite and we
produced a six and a half thousand war document which
details the alternative, the alternative to the UN Refugee Convention

(02:13):
if we were to leave it, which is what we
what we advocate.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
Now.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
I'm going to start, however, by just some homegrown stuff.
We're going to be looking at a conference that John
Swiney attended yesterday, also an Assarwar grandly titled Scotland twenty fifty,
and this was a conference put together by a sort

(02:46):
of well they're not politicians as such, but the Cross
Party supporters basically a kind of think tank put this
together really probably just to elevate themselves in the public
eye rather than any other particular reason. Anyway, They've got
John Swinney to speak at it at the Assembly Rooms
in Edinburgh yesterday and one of the things that he

(03:09):
pointed out in his bletheration he was allowed to give
a long rambling speech. One of the things he pointed
out was that he would like to think that in
twenty fifty Scotland will be back in the European Union.
And the way he phrased it was he said that
in twenty fifty we will have looked at our place

(03:29):
in this world and decided that the greatest opportunity for us,
and the approach which provides the greatest security, is the
European Union. Now, how do we get there? And it
won't surprise you to know that the path to getting
there involved, of course breaking up the United Kingdom, because

(03:51):
there's nothing better is there than advocating a union of
nations while breaking up your own.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
Nation of unions.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Anyway, that's been the irony of the SNP for many
many years now, So that was really the big thing
that came out of it. The other thing that came
out of it was apparently all the Scottish people are
concerned mainly with two things. One the high cost of living,
which is certainly correct, and to climate change. Yes, we're

(04:23):
all really desperately concerned about climate change. We all go
about waking up in the morning not thinking about how
do we pay the rent this week or how do
we get enough money to buy the groceries, but we
we wake up worrying about climate change in the far
reaches of the planet. Well, you know, it's what world

(04:45):
does John Swheney live in. Anyway, what he did was
he gave that speech, and Kate Forbes also gave a speech.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
And here.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
That must be the Daily Mail desperate Swinney in one
last roll of the dice to crush SNP rebellion. Now
what he is suggested, what that paper is suggesting is
that there's a lot of people in the SNP who
are very much opposed to John Swinney because they see

(05:20):
him as as not the man to lead them over
the next few years, as too much of a kind
of door person that doesn't exactly set the woods on fire.
The problem, of course with the SNP is they don't
have anybody else other than that kind of person in
their ranks. They do, however, have a fairly large coterie

(05:42):
of young women that they are hoping to bring in
to these sorts of leadership positions. And in fact I
noticed that Kate says, I know how to unsuccessfully juggle

(06:02):
a two year old and this job. And she's talking
there about various abuse that some women get when they
enter politics. Well maybe, but I wouldn't feel too sorry
for Kate Forbes, because she is on a massive salary,
an absolute massive salary. In fact, I looked at the

(06:27):
salary levels for these guys recently because I noticed in
a report last week that the SNP now has twenty
three cabinet mister Cabinet secretaries is what they call them, well,

(06:47):
cabinet secretaries and ministers. They've got twenty three cabinet secretaries
and ministers. And a cabinet secretary is more important than
a minister, and a cabinet secretary gets more money than
a minister. So let's just have or look at the
salary scales. Actually here an MSP there, the first column

(07:11):
is the annual salary of these people and the second
column is the total salary once you've added on their
various roles. So an MSP gets a straightforward seventy four
and a half thousand pounds, which is incredible. Really an
MSP with a dual mandate, now that's an MSP who

(07:32):
also is a Westminster MP. If you're a Westminster MP,
you get a much reduced MSP salary, just presumably to
punish you. So you're only looking at twenty five thousand there.
The first minister is on AE hundred and seven thousand.

(07:54):
But when you add in his bonus for being the
first Minister actually goes up to one hundred and eighty
two thousand pounds. Cabinet secretaries are on their MSP wage
plus the special wage for a cabinet secretary, which is
essentially their fifty six thousand, So you're looking at a

(08:15):
cabinet secretary getting one hundred and thirty thousand pounds a year,
and a minister's special addition to his salary is another
thirty five thousand, giving him one hundred and nine and
a half thousand. Presiding officer is on the same as
a cabinet secretary. The Deputy Presiding Officer, whoever that is,

(08:39):
and that's an absolute sinecure, is on one hundred and
nine thousand, and the Lord Advocate, if he or she
were to be an MSP, would be on considerably more,
as well as with the Solicitor General for Scotland, both
of whom are allowed to be MSPs if they want,
but neither of which are MSP at the moment. So

(09:01):
what's Kate Forbes's salary? It doesn't actually say what the
deputy First Minister's salary is, but Kate Forbes is both
a cabinet secretary and the deputy minister. So we have
to presume she gets her MSP wage, she gets her
Cabinet secretary wage, and she gets her ministerial wage, which

(09:23):
I worked out would be one hundred and sixty five
five hundred and seventy seven pounds, just coming in behind
John Swinney there, who's leading the field at one hundred
and eighty two thousand. So that works out at almost
fourteen thousand a month, or well over three thousand a week.
So Kate Forbes doesn't need really to complain too much

(09:45):
about being hard done by because those figures are absolutely
off the planet ridiculous for what these guys are doing.
Really just as well they're not getting paid on results,
because if they were getting paid on results, then I'm
afraid they would be getting far, far fewer good good stuff.

(10:12):
Thanks for the comments coming in here on TikTok. We're
also on YouTube, We're also on Twitter, and we're also
on Facebook. And at seven thirty, as I say, we've

(10:34):
got our guest Will Podmore coming up, Brexit author and patriot,
a great, a great fellow. Hang around for that as well, folks.
At seven thirty and one of Will's specialties is British industry,

(10:56):
and that's in his book Capability Britain for a Country
that Works and Will emphasizes the importance of industry to
the national economy. And that just made me remember an
incident just a few days ago, actually regarding our wonderful

(11:24):
SNP administration. SNP accused of hypocrisy for blocking welding school.
The SNP government has been accused of hypocrisy after blocking
a grant for a new eleven eleven million pound welding
center on the Clyde because of a party ban on

(11:48):
funding weapons. The cutting edge facility, backed by Rolls Royce,
aims to support the construction and maintenance of Royal Navy submarines,
but it emerged last week that the enterprise was in
jeopardy after Scottish Enterprise and Economic Development Agency, overseen by
the Scottish government, withdrew a vital two point five million

(12:11):
pound grant. The move provoked a backlash from defense industry
leaders and politicians who said it threatened skilled job creation
and undermined national security. And this is how the SNP
get called out for being hypocritical because at Holyrood yesterday

(12:32):
Richard Lockhead, the SNP's Business minister defended the decision, insisting
that the Scottish government quote very much values the role
of the defense sector in Scotland and the many jobs
it sustains close quote well, if those words were true,

(12:53):
it's not likely that he would withdraw two point five
million pounds from a a project which aims to teach
young people how to weld. Dame Jackie Bailey, Scottish Labor's
deputy leader, described the Scottish government's position as quote frankly incoherent.

(13:16):
She pointed to the Scottish government owned shipyard Ferguson Marine,
which she claimed was doing subcontract work for BAE Systems
on the Royal Navy's Type twenty six frigate program. And
so this is what the SNP will do. They will

(13:37):
speak out of one side of their mouth while doing
the absolute opposite, and they will try to claim that, oh,
we're for the Scottish defense industry at the same time
as they remove money from the Scottish defense industry. So
how do they imagine then, that if there were to
be an independent Scotland, how do they imagine Scotland's going

(13:58):
to defend itself If they're not going to put any
money into the defense industry, and this money as well
in the defense industry is teaching people to weld. But
that's a skill which they'll have whether they're working within
the defense industry or not, so it's actually.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
A proper a proper skill.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Really what the skills may be applied to should really
be irrelevant, one would have thought.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
And of course the.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
British Defense Secretary John Healey said he could quote hardly
believe that they would do this, that they would remove
this grant, and he said the UK government will step
in to provide the funding unless the SNP ministers refuse

(14:55):
to consider the outrageous ban. Remember these are SNP ministers
who are on that those massive salaries that we just
looked at. An SNP minister will be on at least
one hundred and nine thousand, probably one hundred and thirty
thousand pounds. So this is what we are facing here

(15:19):
in Scotland is basically a so called government that's totally
incoherent on these sorts of matters. Rural Affairs Secretary Marie
Gudjin said, quote, we don't support the use of public
finance for the manufacturer of musician munitions and neither do

(15:45):
we support that from nuclear weapons. Well, we know they've
always been opposed to nuclear weapons. But are they saying
they don't support funds for the Scottish defense industry? Is
indeed what they appear to be saying. But they know
that they don't have to bother anyway because they know
that at the end of the day is going to

(16:06):
be the British taxpayer that's going to be paying for
it all, whether the defense industry or any other element
of the matter. And we also know what happens to
that warning that the SNP will squander the extra cash.

(16:27):
And this is actually good news as far as money
coming into Scotland is concerned. This reports from the twelfth
of June Daily Telegraph. Rachel Reeves announced yesterday that Scotland's
block grant from Westminster will rise by an average of
almost three billion per year to the largest settlement in
real terms since devolution. SNP ministers will have an average

(16:51):
of fifty one billion of spending money per year between
twenty twenty six twenty twenty nine, with each year rising
by more than inflation. And that's what we unionists call

(17:11):
the union dividend. The fact that it really does benefit
Scotland to be part of a united Kingdom, and indeed
our guest was coming up at seven point thirty. Willpodmore,
in his book Capability Britain, said to demand that Wales,

(17:33):
or Scotland or the Northeast all be treated as separate
economic units would destroy the chances of success that a
united country can achieve. We need to plan for the
future treating the whole of Britain as one economic union.
This will enable the economies of scale and the interconnectedness

(17:55):
that a successful economy needs to succeed. This plan must
give due weight to advancing the interests of all parts
of the country. Absolutely well said and always been a truth,
and it's always been a truth that US Unionists have
tried to point people towards. Other truths that would like

(18:19):
to point people towards. Is our new document, which we
released yesterday. Let me just bring it up here we go. Now,
we've long been advocates of the necessity to leave the
UN Refugee Convention, which was set up in nineteen fifty one,

(18:42):
and we believe that if we did that then that
would open up a whole range of options which we
presently don't have to deal with. The huge numbers of
people who are coming in essentially illegally, although technically it's
legal within the UN Refugee Convention, they are basically, to
all intents and purposes, appearing to the rest of us

(19:03):
as illegal. And so if we did that, we would
need something to replace it. And so we've written this
six and a half thousand word document, which is a
twenty five minute read. By the way, so this is
for the hardcore. This is for their hard core here,
but let me just summarize it.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
Here we go.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
The goals of the program. The definitions are ten core principles,
or rather our ten core proposals. How we deal with
those who arrive outside of what we are suggesting should
be an asylum visa system, how to deal with those

(19:46):
whose claims are indeed being considered, whether or not we
should allow asylum appeals, our new status for people who
are granted refugee status called contingent refugee Leave to Remain,
and part six here some considerations for the actual border

(20:10):
force themselves. So we put this together in a very logical,
very thoughtful way, and we say it ourselves. But we've
never read anything like this anywhere before. Much that's been
written before is looking at how does Britain deal with

(20:31):
the refugee crisis within the boundaries of the UN Refugee Convention,
And as we've pointed out, it's extremely difficult to get
a handle on it. It's so long as you remain
within that convention, because that convention was never intended as
a way to move economic migrants around the world. It

(20:54):
was never intended as a way for people who are
suffering some kind of misfortune to be able to climb
asylum in other countries.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
It was really only ever.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
Initially, it was only intended to try to sort out
the chaos after World War Two, and then in nineteen
sixty seven, it was already out of date, but everybody
had signed up to it, and they kept it on
the books, and they amended it to refer not just

(21:25):
to the people who were suffering as a consequence of
World War two, but essentially to amend it to every
nation and every place in the world. That was called
the nineteen sixty seven Protocol. It was all unnecessary, it
was all out of date, but we're still stuck with
this in the age now of mass travel and communication

(21:45):
and transportation. The UN Refugee Convention is simply a way
that undermines the safety and security and especially the sovereignty
of our national borders and indeed every nation national borders,
and it really is no longer fit for purpose. The
thing is, though it is a core law of the

(22:10):
postwar legal structure. Every nation is signed up to it,
and to overturn it, or rather just simply to leave
it would be a revolutionary act. And it's not something
that for example, Keir Starmer's government will be doing in
the next three or four years, but it's definitely something
that we need to start a conversation upon because the

(22:33):
UN Refugee Convention at the moment is being used for
things which it was never intended to be used for.
It's being used now is simply a backdoor way of
getting people into the country outside of the proper legal channels.
So we recognize all of that.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
In this we.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
Explain how the UN Refugee Convention works. We start with
our definitions of what asylum seeker is compared to what
a refege is, and we start with our cor proposals,
which firstly is leaving the UN Convention, and then when
we've done that, people who enter the country illegally, will

(23:16):
be free to be disciplined as it were, will be
free to be put in prison if necessary, because at
the moment, if somebody enters illegally and claims refugee status,
we do have to take them seriously, Whereas if we leave,
will no longer be bound by that requirement. We will
be able to have an actual deterrent, which will be prison.

(23:39):
At the moment, if we declare somebody's asylum claim nonsense
and inadmissible, we still cannot send them back without an
investigation which proves otherwise. So that again is just simply
a way that these people are able to stay in
the country. So that has to end as well, and
that will when we leave the UN Refugee Convention. Now

(24:05):
a lot of people think it's the ECCHR which prevents us.

Speaker 2 (24:10):
Deporting people. It's not.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
Actually, it's the UN refuge Convention. As we say here,
it is primarily the primarily the UN Refugee Convention which
opens the door into the country in the first place,
and it is the UN Refugee Convention which is the
main reason we're prevented from deporting clearly fraudulent, in admissible
asylum seekers. As per the explanation which we've given in

(24:33):
the above paragraphs. However, the ECHR does kick in for
a far fewer number who don't want to leave and
who can make a claim under family life, and that's
usually because they've been in the country long enough to
actually start a family life. And as we're saying here,

(24:55):
if our proposals are brought in, most of these people
will not actually be in the country long enough to
start a family life, and so we'll probably largely we'll
probably largely solve that problem in itself just by our
new proposals. And we talk some people also say, oh,
we need to abolish the Human Rights Act. We don't

(25:18):
actually need to abolish that at all. We just need
to do what we've suggested here in these articles. And
here's a big one. We're going back to the asylum
applications from nineteen eighty four. And you're notice in these
years between eighty four and eighty eight, there's an average

(25:38):
there of around about what do we say, three thousand
but fourth then, yeah, around two thousand applications in those
years eighty four to eighty eight. In twenty twenty four
there was eighty four thousand. Okay, Now, the world was

(26:00):
just as dangerous back in the eighties as it is today.
The only thing that it's changed, of course, is mass
communication and ease of transport. And so we're saying, let's
get back and just simply allow that number of applications
which will give us around about four thousand people all together,

(26:20):
four four to five thousand people a year. Perfectly feasible
and handable will be able to handle that number. But
these kind of numbers just now, eighty four thousand, eighty
four thousand primary applications that doesn't include dependence. I mean,

(26:40):
that's crazy, absolutely crazy. Figures maintain a safe country list,
the asylum applications to be lodged and visas issued at
the British embassy are consulate in the country of origin.
That's an important one as well. And tightening up just

(27:02):
what is persecution and originally and still to this day,
the actual written words of the UN Refugee Convention say
that there has to be a direct risk to life
or freedom, but that has been expanded now to simply.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
Be to be.

Speaker 1 (27:22):
Far wider in a way that basically brings in anybody
who's got a complaint about anything. And in parts number ten,
nine and ten here we look at the UN and
its own particular refugee and humanitarian schemes and we advise
against participation in them. They're not really relevant to us.

(27:46):
So that's a big article there. I do suggest that
you go to it. Just simply go to a Force
for Good dot UK, click on blog and you get
taken to it.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
It's a major read, but it covers all the.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
Bases and it is a very good piece of work
and it could be simply adopted by any political party
if they wanted to adopt that tomorrow, and I would
encourage people to do that. That's out there, it's for free,
and it's my gift to you, as it were the folks.
I'm going to bring on our guest at the bottom

(28:29):
of the hour, Sorry for being three minutes late for that.
This is Will pod Moore. Let me bring on Will.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
Hello there. Thanks very much, Alistair. That was absolutely fascinating.
I've learned an awful lot. I look forward very much
to examining in detail that your proposal, which sounds extremely sensible.
Good at your earlier suggestion about paying SMP politicians by
their results, so I think that would certainly reduce the

(29:02):
burden on the Scottish taxpayer considerably. Not a bad idea
at all.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Absolutely, maybe that's what we should do for all, for
all politicians.

Speaker 3 (29:13):
Maybe and early on I'd just like to thank Alistair
and all his team, all the team of all the
false for good who do such wonderful work on behalf
of all the citizens of our beloved country. I think
it's wonderful work they're doing, all of yourself. Thank you

(29:35):
for that, well.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Thank you very much yourself.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
Well, you've been a great long time end of our
organization and a great supporter and very very grateful for
all of that. Now an author as well, and we
always like to plug your book Capability Britain for a
country that works. What was the thinking behind waiting this.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
Book, Well, largely it was that there's so much talk
about you decline and you know, everything's broken and we're
all doomed, and you know, if you know to climate
doesn't kill us, you know something else will. And I
just thought, well, actually, there's a lot of positives in
the country that need to be emphasized and built on.

(30:26):
You know, we've still got an educated population, a skilled population.
We've still got quite a lot of industry, not as
much as we should have, but we've still got a
lot of industry, quite often in the very important defense sector,
which has stipped the residue of many of the engineering
skills that are so important across the wider economy. We've

(30:50):
still got an apprenticeship scheme which brings young people into work,
into skilled work, and that's very important and it ought
to be expanded hugely. That would help enormously to solve
a lot of the problems we see social problems with
young men without education or employment. You know, we need

(31:13):
to get people into apprenticeships. That's very important to do
useful work. There's so much work that needs doing and
it isn't being done currently. And what we have at
the moment with a labor government labor well, it doesn't
It's like Alistair was saying about talking out the side
of their mouths. You know, they quite often now in particular,
talk to talk. You know, they will talk about HS two,

(31:39):
you know, a brilliant project, but they've been chopping and
chopping and chopping, delaying and delaying, delaying, so what we
won't get the full benefits of HS too. Even ya
the date they're now postulating, what was it twenty thirty
five or something. I mean talk about delay, delayed, delay,
absolutely ridiculous. Yes, so many other aspects of industry. Where

(32:03):
now they're talking about steel and they've put a little
bit of support towards Scunthorpe, but not enough to port Toll,
but not enough to steel making in Scotland either. But
still the Scunthorpe works who owns it a Chinese company,
they still own it. We don't own it, the people

(32:23):
don't own it. That our state, our nation doesn't own it.
It's this Chinese company. And the suspicion was that that
Chinese company was very happy to pull the plug on
British steel still called British steel rather ironically, but they
pull the plug on British steel in order to benefit

(32:44):
the Chinese steel industry. Well, surprise, surprise. But a country
should look after its own national interests and not knocking
them for looking after the national interest. But I am
very disappointed that Labor government isn't doing a similar thing
of looking after the British national interest obviously not the

(33:07):
English national interest, the British national interest, and that is
so important. That's what needs to be done. I want sorry.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
I like the fact that your book definitely does emphasize
the British angle, and you're very You've always been very
keen on the unity of the people of Great Britain,
which is something that really appeals to us as well.

Speaker 3 (33:35):
Yes, it's so important. I mean the referendum result which
is now so routinely decried and always has been by
by certain people, led usually by the SNP. That referendum,
more than seventeen million people voted for an independent United Britain.

(33:56):
In effect, how many people voted for k Thomer's Labor
government in the recent election million nine million compared to
seventeen million. How dare he try to reverse the democratic
decision of seventeen million, which was the biggest single vote
for anything in British history. How dare this leader of

(34:18):
a minority government which had so little support across the country.
Was a sixty percent turnout in that election, and in
effect Labor got something like twenty percent of the votes.
A fifth of the electorate supported the Labor Party, so
it's thirty percent of the votes, but given them such

(34:40):
a low turnout, only a fifth of the population actually
supported that government, so they have what mandate is that
it's not a very strong mandate. Is it certainly not
to reverse a hugely democratic decision. No.

Speaker 1 (34:55):
Unfortunately, the way things work in the UK is that
once you get into the contend to do you know
what you want or rather what.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
You can get you get away with.

Speaker 2 (35:09):
Yeah, yeah, that seems to be a bit of yeah.

Speaker 3 (35:13):
I think quite often recently we've seen that the government
can be pushed back on some issues. I mean, I
don't think it would have supported the people who work
at you know, the skun Sort Steel Works if those
people there hadn't actually picked up quite a fuss, and

(35:34):
I know, you know other steel workers across the country
did without so much success. But it's it's very important
that people put pressure on a government and put forward
their own plans for building and restoring and expanding the
industrial structure of the country. Of course, you know, a
country that hasn't got the capacity to produce its own steel,

(35:57):
for instance, is extremely dependent on everybody else for steel,
because you need steal for your computers, your rail just
for everything you think of that you need. Steel is
a vital component and we would be if we lost steel,
we'd be the only G seven country without the capacity
to produce quality steel on our own account, and that

(36:21):
would be really a backward, really backward step.

Speaker 1 (36:26):
After writing a big manual like this. Do you have
any reason as to why successive British governments have let
that sort of thing go in such a way.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
Is it just.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
Ignorance or lack of care, or conspiracy or.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
It's I don't think they put the country first. I
think I mean, like you see with those SNP people
with their grossly inflated salaries. You know, once you're sitting
there in the holy Rood getting into your bank account
that much money every month, you really don't probably care

(37:14):
very passionately about anybody else. And I do think it's
very worrying that you know, those people are are so
well paid for doing so little. I mean, holy Rood
was never a great success, was it. You all know
far more about it than I do. You know it
more intimately than I do at least, but you know,
to me, it's been a waste of space ever since

(37:36):
it started. You know, it has got no right to exist.
But does that explain why politicians do what they do.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
I don't know. I think it does to an extent, and.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
They take the easy route like you take Hollywood, for example,
most of the people who are there are kind of
they've been put they've been lucky, they've been able to
be accepted by the Labor Party of the SNP. They've
been put in areas where they're going to get in.
They've got a really nice, cushy number.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
And they're not.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
For no reasons against them them as such, but they're
not exactly great thinkers or even ideologues, are passionate. Really,
they're just happy to get the seventy five pounds a
year and they'll just keep quiet. And it's the same
in Westminster as well. And if you are an outspoken voice,

(38:39):
you're going to get chucked out of your party because
you're going to be too much, too much of a problem,
so you have to go along. So I think the
party system it's heavily to blame. I'm not saying that
there's a solution to that. I can't imagine what it is,
but there is very much like just that's in great

(39:00):
aimed in the institution.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
Yeah, it makes it very hard for the members of
those parties to prioritize anything except their survival and advancement
within those parties. And that means obviously the national interest
goes right down to the bottom of the pile of
their concerns, you know, and Starmer has been pretty rough.

(39:24):
I mean, one thing is he did turn the Labor
Party from being a pretty shambolic organization under mister Corbyn
into being a party which at least managed to win
that general election. And he did it by kicking out
a load of people who really, you know, were not
any help to his party. But nonetheless, what does he

(39:49):
do with that power that he's now got. That's what
is alarming. I think it's very alarming. Indeed that the
fact that he's effective it makes him more dangerous in
many ways. And his ability to talk in response to
what people are concerned about but not doing anything is

(40:11):
very concerning. I mean, like Alis says, produced this policy
about refugees and asylum seekers. Well, in the old days,
it was the case that still whatever happened, state had
the sovereignty could say yes or no to accept or
not accept whoever approached its borders. Originally, the whole idea

(40:35):
of refugee was that you were in danger in your
own country and you were allowed to seek refuge in
the first safe country you could reach. It's like sanctuary,
like somebody being attacked by an anti Jewish mob and
could seek sanctuary in the first church they could get into,

(40:56):
but they weren't entitled to say, well, I don't like
this church very much of it church down the road
because they provide far more benefits than than our church here,
you know. So that's what's happening instead of you. They're
not staying in the first safe country they reach, couldn't
say it isn't trans fairly safe, isn't Italy safe?

Speaker 2 (41:15):
You know?

Speaker 3 (41:16):
They reach Europe and because of the open borders policy
of the Sengun thing, they can then just wander across
the whole of Europe and go to the place which
offers the best benefits.

Speaker 1 (41:29):
Yes, my studies have shown me that what's happened with
that UN Refugee Convention is that that that idea of
the safe country, the first safe country, has been expanded
now that it doesn't really have any effects. So you
can't You could try arguing that that you're not allowed

(41:52):
to go back, but the judges will look at case
law and they'll say, oh, no, we're no longer really
hold to that notion. It's like one of these ideas
that it's an idealistic idea, but in practice, the judges
and the precedent as it were, no longer really holds
to that anymore. But it is ridiculous because Frances are

(42:14):
very obviously a safe country, but France isn't going to
take them back because the way that France looks at
it is, well, they're only in France because they're trying
to get to Britain, and until you stop them getting
to Britain, they're always going to come to France, and
so like Britain is the problem, and they're actually correct,

(42:35):
we are the problem here. We are the people who
are Our government is the magnet that's bringing them in
to France, and France don't really need to raise a finger,
and arguably they shouldn't even bother when it's our fault
that they're there in France. That's the way the French

(42:55):
look at it, and that's the way they've looked at
it for since this began in twenty seven teen, twenty eighteen.
I've got news reports in our detailed files here talking
about Mayor of Cali saying it's Britain's fault and getting
angry with Britain because of these people in their towns
and vicinities, so it's our fault and until we do

(43:18):
something along the lines of what I'm suggesting in that document,
then it's not going to get any better.

Speaker 3 (43:28):
I've read a lot of what you've written on this
subject out of the stair and it's just absolutely diamond.
It's absolutely first right stuff. And I'm sure this this
new document will be as excellence as all the rest,
and it needs to be widely read and acted on,
you know. I think it's it's really important. You know,
a nation that can't control its borders is in some trouble.

(43:49):
You see all these boats full of young men. Although
that was that labor minister that said they were mostly
women and children and didn't she well, she must be
lined or something.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
I don't know, Yes it was. It was a bloke,
but yeah, yeah, it.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Was absolutely nonsensical and just sort of picturing of paper
this morning of a boat with about one hundred blokes
on it. Didn't see any women or babies on it,
you know, and they were all of fighting age. Were
to come from countries that have been wrecked by war,
so quite often there's severely damaged people PTSD, you know,

(44:29):
suffering from that and they bring those problems into this country.
And when you analyze the ethnic background of you know,
various kinds of criminals in this country, you will find
all too many Albanians here running the drugs business, running
the prostitution business. You've seen that they've got people of
Pakistani heritage running grooming gangs. You know, it's not as

(44:53):
if we didn't have any before, but you know, some
certain ethncessities seem to run to particular kinds of of crime,
and we don't want to be impolting that kind of problem.
We really don't. It's not sensible at.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
All, that's right, because these are people coming from a
violent culture and that that's just the way that it is.
And they're they're not like that we bodies that live
in are we Scottish villages, you know, they're they're there
are men from a from a seriously often anyway. They've

(45:28):
seen terrible, terrible things that hopefully none of us will
ever see in our lifetime. And so it's it is
a it is a threat to our safety as well.
I mean, I have this phrase the UN Refugee Convention.
It's not fit for purpose, and it is an active
threat to our national sovereignty, security and the safety of

(45:51):
the people, and as such it needs to end here.
This this article here states it says most migrants are children,
claims Minister, but it says Home Office data shows eighty
four percent of arrivals over the year to March twenty
twenty five, where with twelve point five percent women and

(46:16):
the rest of undetermined gender at the time of the release.
I don't know if that few percentage would be children or.

Speaker 2 (46:22):
Something like that. I don't know why they would, I don't.

Speaker 1 (46:25):
Know how they say that, but certainly eighty eighty four
percent grown men.

Speaker 3 (46:31):
Yeah, yeah, quite.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Sometimes these politicians just bank on the listener not having
a clue, and so they'll just say stupid stuff, knowing
that these people are never going to check up. They're
just going to listen to me, and so I can
just say whatever I want and I'll dominate this particular

(46:56):
argument at this particular moment, and for them, that's all
that matters.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
It's not a good attitude.

Speaker 3 (47:02):
Well, that was very much David Cameron's attitude during the
you know you referendum. You know, I'm mister mister lord snooty,
you know, and I know it all and new plubs
better just do what I say basically, because you know
I can't negotiate very well. I know that really, but
it doesn't matter because I can get away with it.

(47:23):
I'm still Prime Minister. I'll carry on being Prime minister,
after all. I'm eating at Oxford Darling.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
You know. Yes, it's.

Speaker 1 (47:32):
It's really And he did get away with it as
well as did Boris Johnston.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
Yeah, some of these guys they just always land on
the feet.

Speaker 3 (47:41):
Well that they live in a different area of the
world where we say social socially anyway.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
Well, I'll tell you something. When they were at Oxford together,
that group of the Bullingdon Club, I was at Reading
University fifteen minutes twenty minutes on the railway line from
Reading from from Oxford. So they were my peers. They
are my peer eventually, and they went there as a

(48:10):
consequence of going to Oxford, and I went my way
as a consequence of going to Reading University. So I
don't know what that if I had ever met them,
I don't.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Know very much in common with them at the time.
That was for certain.

Speaker 3 (48:25):
Yeah, well it shows that you can't generalize about generations.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
That's true. That's true.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
Well, I just want to give a shout out once
again to your book capability Britain for a country that
works and a lot of good stuff in there. People
will get it from Amazon, this one which was written
quite when was this one done?

Speaker 2 (48:55):
That was twenty eighteen.

Speaker 1 (48:56):
Yeah, so that was just a couple of years after
the Brexit referendum.

Speaker 2 (49:02):
The Road to Freedom.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
If you're interested in the Brexit and European Union debate
and how it relates to British, the British nation and
its economy, then this is definitely one again to look at.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Again.

Speaker 1 (49:17):
You'll get that by just typing in Brexit the Road
to Freedom out on Amazon.

Speaker 3 (49:24):
I think kinds of a thought at the time, you know,
when we voted and got that historic victory, then that
was it. Fine, We'll be okay, the debate's over, We've
won it. We can sit back and you know the
politicians will do as they've been told. Are not quite
did they?

Speaker 1 (49:43):
No?

Speaker 3 (49:44):
No I classically said Brexit means brexitt and then she
did everything she could to kind of like say Brexit
means to EU again and that chased Arma Recalls famously
wanted a second referendum. You know, if you don't get
the right result from those damn people who insist on
voting the wrong way that I told them not to vote.

(50:05):
Then you must ignore what they said and then try
and override it whatever way you can. And there's other
Escambill's still trying to do the same thing along with you.
There's other mates in the Labor Party live anti dams,
we should call them.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
I think it was a genuine kind of people's revolution
in the sense our democratic revolution that the elites were
simply not wanting and not ready for and not prepared
to accept. And to this day there's most many of
them have still not swallowed the bitter pill and are
still painting after the old days.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
And we've got to just be careful that we did
that they don't get away again. Always vigilant well as
we say that.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
You know, the struggle isn't over there, just like I
mean in Scotland, I really think the separatists are on
the back foot at the moment. They seem to be
bitching against each other. You know, there are two big
charismatic so called you know leaders. One's dead and the
others disgraced, and they left with very second rate people

(51:13):
force right first, right, John Swinney sixth right. I don't know,
but you know there's a lot impressive and like rats
in the SAT now aren't they fighting over the succession?

Speaker 2 (51:24):
You know? Yeah, after hands that you absolute failure, Well, they.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
Can still bring the country down regardless of how competent
or incompetent they are, and that's something that that's why
we're always going to have to have a job here,
a Force for Good, because that particular threats never really
going away and it's our duty and indeed a pleasure
to fight it. Well, it's coming close to the end here,

(51:51):
so I just want to say thanks very much for
coming on tonight. You've been able to to remind us
that the EU matter is again something that's not going away,
requires constant vigilance, and so thank you.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
For all the all the work that you do and
all the efforts.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
And I know you're writing articles on a regular basis
getting published in various places as well, So thanks for
keeping the British end up.

Speaker 3 (52:20):
As they say, well, thank you, and I to say
thanks to all the team of Force for Good. You
are wonderful, you're doing a wonderful job. Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (52:30):
Thank you. Well, it's our pleasure.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Will Okay, well, enjoy the rest of your evening and
we'll have you back on again sometime.

Speaker 3 (52:39):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (52:39):
That'd be good. Cheers all right.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Fantastic good to see Will. They are a great author
and a great supporter of our work as well. Now, folks,
as you probably will remember, for last week, we're running
our crowdfunder, our British summertime crowdfunder. It's at crowdfunder dot

(53:09):
co dot uk forward slash Summer twenty twenty five and
this is to see us through the next few months
until the end of the year.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
And if you.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
Are minded to give something, please check out that link
and you can make a donation of your choice by
simply putting in whatever figure you would like at the
donate button. However, if you would like to climb a
reward as well, then we've also got rewards for any

(53:48):
kind of particular donation that you might make, and the
top reward for endi that gives twenty five pounds, you'll
get one of our affg Union heart badges, which is
otherwise worth six pounds. You'll get that sent to you
for free. And we've also got other things going on there,

(54:16):
including our we book and our one Big Country book
as well. These are available for a reward. I think
it's thirty pounds. You can get both of these, and
that package there is worth fifteen pounds, so please do

(54:39):
have a look at that. It's going to be running
for another fortnite or thereabouts, well another three weeks actually
from today, and we're not asking for a huge amount
or certainly we're asking for a very very small proportion
of Cape Forbes's salary. In fact, what does it work
out at, We're asking for one point five percent of

(55:03):
Kate Forbes's annual salary. That's what we're asking for, which
just makes you think what it must be like to
be Kate Forbes or her husband who can simply retire
now I think anyway, anyway, enough of that, folks, thank

(55:24):
you very much for your comments. Derek says, great show,
Thank you, Derek, Oxana says thanks Will, Chris says, thanks
to a force for good and today's guest as we say,
huge thanks to willpod More for joining us this evening.

(55:48):
We will be back next week and we've got another
guest next week. It's going to be Nick Mitchell, who's
been on the show a couple of times before, and
I've been happy to be on his show as well.
He runs the We Say It podcast, and he'll be
on the show next week and we'll be talking about

(56:09):
some activism that he and I and others are going
to get up to in July. So until then, it
just remains for me to say God Bless the United
Kingdom and God Save the King.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
See you next week.