Scott McCafferty

A response to my critics. Suicide of a Nation is clearly becoming a major book & I'm DELIGHTED by the debate it's sparked. This is why I wrote it. People deserve to know the truth about what is happening in their own country. I also find myself in the curious position of watching Suicide of a Nation be criticised by people on both the Left, many of whom have clearly not read it, & people further to my Right, who oppose my support for Reform. I will deal with all this together. 1. Research, stats & evidence All the research, stats, data come from the official 2021 UK census data. The projections are calibrated to the 2022 Office for National Statistics national population projections, ensuring consistency with national trends. I believe this is the most systematic, sophisticated look at the demographic revolution unfolding in Britain that we have to date. To be clear, Suicide of a Nation is also a trade book, intended for a mass audience. It is not like books written by academics that are typically only read by a few dozen or a few hundred people. It is designed to reach tens of thousands, which it is now doing, to try and help shift the Overton Window. If you want all the detailed assumptions, analysis, & modelling behind the book you can read them here: shorturl.at/d3Hg8 Or if you want to look at the key trends in more detail you can see them in our Substack this morning: shorturl.at/LLBeS 2. Substack, links, and footnotes Trade books by their nature have minimal footnotes. The aim is to inspire a mass readership. Having spent 20 years in the universities, I wanted to write a trade book. Hence the lack of footnotes. If you want the data detail on the trends see the paper above. I do link to several of my Substack articles because, as it happens, with the exception of David Coleman, I am one of the only people who has run demographic projections at this level. You can read it here: shorturl.at/Gij6S. Ditto my discussion in the book of Muslim attitudes, Reform voters, and the economic costs of net migration. Nobody else is writing about these issues as we are at mattgoodwin.org hence me citing those pieces. I see no problem with this. I am proud of our work. Academics cite their own work all the time. It just so happens this time around they disagree with my work! 3. AI school census data Footnote 8 includes a reference to school and nursery data via AI which was then cross-checked with the real dataset (available here: shorturl.at/KlFVm. I see no issue obtaining datasets via AI so long as they are cross-checked with the original source (above). Hence why I include the reference. This school census data shows, clearly, nearly 1 in 4 primary pupils & nearly 1 in 3 nursery pupils no longer speak English as their main language. I attach the screenshot. In Bradford, the example, nearly 40% of state primary children do not speak English as their main language (see screenshot). In some primary schools in Bradford, 98% of pupils speak 'English as an additional language'. Nationally, as I talk about in the book, and as GB News revealed last year, there are now 2,000 schools where English is no longer the main language for most pupils In 2 primary schools, not a single child has English as their native tongue. In 107 schools, 9 in 10 pupils do not speak English at home. In 2,309 schools in England, English is no longer the first language. And across the country, 1.8 million children, 1 in 5, do not speak English as their main language (see here shorturl.at/KXROf) It is also now fact, as I say in the book, to have schools in the Midlands with more than 30 languages spoken: shorturl.at/OfyNj I notice my critics ignore all these statistics, as well as the obvious problems this creates in the classroom, for example -> shorturl.at/6TJYz The left-wing claim that this does not create problems is ludicrous. Research by scholars such as Strand and Hessel finds that pupils who speak English as an additional (not main) language explains 22% of the variation in their educational achievement, compared to 3-4% that is statistically explained by things like gender or free school meals (as a measure of poverty). So, unlike the Left, I think this is a major problem and I make no apology for saying so. We should have a shared language. Bilingualism undermines our shared culture & nation. Mass immigration is weakening our educational system. 4. Solutions and prognosis Some argue the book offers no solution. I disagree. I am clear throughout. End mass migration. Exit the ECHR. Repeal the HRA. End welfare & social housing subsidies for non-Brits. End two-tier multiculturalism. Crack down on Islamism. Invest in Pro-family policies. Deport illegal migrants, foreign criminals & those who do not make a net fiscal contribution to the UK economy. Reassert our free speech. Scrap definitions of 'Islamophobia'. Abolish non-crime hate incidents. Where I depart from critics further to my Right is in opposing vague and ill-defined talk about "mass deportations" or "remigration", which often appear to mean "deport anybody who isn't White", or "deport British nationals". I reject this - politically, morally, ethically. I simply do not think it is right, possible, politically appealing to an election-winning majority, or in tune with our political culture. I also do not think the Americans cheering on other parties understand the nuances in our political culture. 5. Intellectual lineage. The book implicitly nods, throughout, to the work of Roger Scruton, Eric Kaufmann, Anthony Smith, Walker Connor, Douglas Murray (subtitle), all of whom have warned through speeches, podcasts, e-mails, and articles about the loss of a historic majority group. This is deliberate. Left-wingers who argue, for example, that Smith or Connor did not warn about the loss of a historic core are simply not reading their work, or being disingenuous. The title of the book is a specific nod to Arthur Koestler's Suicide of a Nation, a left-wing account of Britain's decline in the postwar era. My book, in contrast, is obviously a national conservative/right-wing take on Britain's decline. Sometimes, you don't need to state your influences because they are so obvious - at least to people who read books. 6. Publishing in 2026 Some people have asked why I did not publish with a mainstream publisher given my past books were with Penguin, Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, etc., and I wrote two Sunday Times bestsellers (now three?) The answer is because I believe the publishers have been ideologically captured and no longer allow genuine free speech and debate. Having gone through mainstream publishers, I know for a fact this book would never have been published or would have been edited and diluted to the point at which it says nothing interesting or truthful at all. Anybody who is a serious author, who has gone through the editorial process, knows this to be true. The reality, in 2026, is if you have a profile and a large Substack you no longer need mainstream publishers. You no longer need to be controlled by Gatekeepers. This is a positive development. And in many respects I hope that given it's obvious success (top 5 on Amazon) Suicide of a Nation will encourage others to break with establishment publishing. This is what we need to do if we are serious about taking on the institutions. Lastly, my thanks to the left-wing trolls and resentful, bitter, unsuccessful former academic colleagues who are coordinating an attack on the Amazon Reviews page. They are helping drive the algorithm, ensuring this book receives the attention it deserves and is read by many, many more people. I thank you for this. Best wishes, Matt p.s. buy the book below or via Waterstones, Blackwell's, Foyles, etc (Amazon is now regularly running out such is the demand) amazon.co.uk/Suicide-Nation…

We are investigating an antisemitic arson attack on Jewish ambulances in Golders Green. We know this will cause significant concern in the local community and are stepping up patrols and engaging with faith leaders. Read more here: mynewsdesk.com/uk/metpoliceuk…