Category Archives: campaign for an English Parliament

Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?


Consultation on what an English Parliament might look like – what is your view?

The issue of an English Parliament continues to rise up the scale of answers and of information and in response to this the Constitution Unit of University College London is consulting on it. Here is their briefing. Do complete their form!



What might an English Parliament look like? The Constitution Unit is consulting on the design options

Posted on November 24, 2016 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit has recently begun work on a new project examining the design options for an English Parliament. This was once seen as an unrealistic proposal but support has grown in recent years and it therefore now deserves to be taken more seriously. Nonetheless many major questions about what an English Parliament might actually look like remain unaddressed. In this post Jack Sheldon and Meg Russell set these questions out and invite views on them through a consultation that is now open and will close on 27 January 2017. 

Calls for an English Parliament have long existed, but frequently been rejected by academics and mainstream politicians. Although a Campaign for an English Parliament was set up in 1998, as the devolved institutions were being established for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the idea did not get off the ground. A central argument has been that such a parliament, thanks to representing almost 85 per cent of the UK’s population, would, in the words of the 1973 Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, result in a Union ‘so unbalanced as to be unworkable’ (para 531). As critics such as Vernon Bogdanor (p. 13) have pointed out, no major existing federation has a component part this dominant, and unbalanced federal systems (e.g. the former USSR and Yugoslavia), have tended to fail. Elites have thus often proposed devolution within England, rather than to England as a whole, as the preferred solution to the ‘English question’, and considered an English Parliament an unrealistic proposal. As the Constitution Unit’s Robert Hazell wrote in 2006, ‘An English Parliament is not seriously on the political agenda, and will never get onto the agenda unless serious politicians begin to espouse it’. 

Growing salience of the English question 


But various factors have increased the salience of questions around England’s place in the devolution settlement, and the idea of an English Parliament has gained new friends as a result. One factor is the gradually greater powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly beyond those bestowed in the 1990s – including legislative powers in an increasing number of fields and significant tax-raising powers. This means that a growing amount of business at Westminster concerns England (or sometimes England and Wales) alone. In turn, this brings the famous ‘West Lothian question’, concerning the voting rights of MPs elected from the devolved nations, more to the fore. The Conservative government consequently introduced a form of ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) in 2015, through changes to House of Commons standing orders. But the new arrangements have been rejected by opposition parties, so might not survive a change of government. Furthermore, the version of EVEL that has been introduced does not actually prevent Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from vetoing English-only legislation. It is therefore far from clear that this will prove to be a satisfactory long-term solution. 

Another contributing factor is growing interest in the future of the Union pre- and post- the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Various unionist politicians, pundits and other political observers have considered how Scottish demands for greater autonomy may be satisfied within the UK, and federalism is being increasingly discussed. The EU referendum result has led some such as Professor Jim Gallagher (Director-General, Devolution Strategy at the Cabinet Office from 2007–10) to suggest that the devolved nations, whilst remaining within the UK, might each pursue different relationships with the EU post-Brexit. Heavyweight political support for something similar has come from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander. The threat of a second Scottish independence referendum, announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote and repeated since, means the government needs to take such proposals seriously. This would clearly require the consequences for England to be addressed.

A third factor is a growth in English, as supposed to British, national identity among the population. Professor Michael Kenny argued in his 2014 book The Politics of English Nationhood that politicians needed to ‘accept and speak to the implications of this shift’ (p. 239). Already we know from polling that those identifying as English rather than British were more likely to support UKIP and the Leave campaign, leading mainstream politicians to consider how to increase their appeal among patriotic English voters. The English question has traditionally exercised Conservative politicians in particular, but it is now within the Labour Party that these issues are being most urgently discussed. Recent manifestations include an e-book, Labour’s Identity Crisis: England and the Politics of Patriotism, edited by former Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, and a new group of MPs, Red Shift Labour, which has published three reports on how the party can improve its English appeal. A central message is that Labour must be more prepared to embrace English identity. As yet there is little agreement on how this should be achieved, but constitutional solutions are among those being discussed. 

Support has grown for an English Parliament, but no detailed blueprint exists 

Hence 10 years on from Robert Hazell’s comments, the idea of an English Parliament commands significantly more political support. On the Conservative side the most persistent advocate has been John Redwood, whilst other prominent supporters include David Davis, now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and Lord Salisbury. Within the Labour Party Frank Field, a longstanding exponent of an English Parliament, has recently been joined by the former shadow cabinet members Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna. John Denham, who served in Gordon Brown’s cabinet and established a Centre of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University in 2015, is open-minded towards the idea. The Scottish National Party are also favourable, and Paul Nuttall, widely expected to win the UKIP leadership election, has pledged support for ‘an English Parliament for English people’. Of course, many other politicians remain convinced by the case against an English Parliament, and neither the Conservative or Labour leaderships appear close to support. But the growing interest across the political spectrum means that the idea deserves to be taken more seriously than previously. 

Nonetheless, there remains no detailed blueprint for what an English Parliament might actually look like – compared, for example, to the proposals produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention which formed the basis for the design of the Scottish Parliament. Hence we have recently begun work on a new project at the Constitution Unit, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that seeks to address this gap. The project follows the Unit’s influential work on the design of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in the 1990s. We will not be advocating for or against an English Parliament – there are strong arguments on both sides and it is ultimately for politicians to decide which case they find more convincing. Instead we will undertake an objective analysis of the options for the detailed design of such a body, in order to inform future deliberations. Whilst some proponents have addressed some design questions they often disagree on key points, while other major questions remain largely unaddressed. We will ask (and – as indicated below – are seeking views on) questions including the following: 

Should an English Parliament be established as part of a settlement to bind the UK together in a more stable way, or to facilitate English independence? Many supporters of an English Parliament are motivated by a desire to prolong the Union in the context of pressures for Scottish independence. Frank Field, for example, has written that an English Parliament is ‘the only way to save the UK’. Yet there have been recent moves towards supporting English independence among some of those campaigning for an English Parliament. The English Democrats have come out in support of independence and Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has suggested that ‘English independence might be the only way forward’. 

Should an English Parliament be separately elected, or should it be composed of English members of the House of Commons holding a dual mandate? The first of these is favoured by the Campaign for an English Parliament, and would mirror arrangements in the existing devolved nations, but the second commands significant support among advocates of an English Parliament, including Conservative MPs John Redwood and Andrew Rosindell.
What powers should an English Parliament have? Most proponents agree that these should be equivalent to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but in some models, for instance that proposed by Conservative MP Teresa Gormanin the late 1990s, an English Parliament would be responsible for everything except foreign affairs and defence. 

How many members should there be in an English Parliament, and within what structure? Under the dual mandate model mentioned above the number of members would clearly be determined by the number of English members of the House of Commons (currently 538). Were a separate English Parliament to be established it might be different – the Wilberforce Society, for example, has proposed a 180-seat English Parliament. The body might also be either unicameral or bicameral. 

What electoral system and boundaries should be used for an English Parliament? Alternatives to first-past-the-post have been used for other devolved parliaments in the UK, but it is not certain that this would also be the case for an English Parliament. The dual mandate model obviously implies the use of first-past-the-post (so long as that system continues to be used for Westminster elections), whilst many leading advocates of a separate English Parliament have not been clear about what electoral system they envisage being used. 

Where should an English Parliament sit? Some supporters of an English Parliament suggest that it would be based at Westminster (either in the House of Commons or House of Lords chamber) but others, including the singer Billy Bragg, have proposed locations outside London. 

Should there also be an English government and First Minister? This is a key demand of the Campaign for an English Parliament and would almost certainly be a feature of any separately elected English Parliament. However, under the dual mandate model the UK government might continue to perform the role of the English government. The Conservative Welsh Assembly member David Melding suggests that, under his version of the dual mandate model (pp. 244–245), a UK government lacking a majority in England could either form a coalition to secure an English majority or seek to govern England as a minority administration. 

How should an English Parliament be financed? The Barnett formula, used to determine the level of public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would not work for an English Parliament with powers equivalent to those of the existing devolved institutions, as it is based on the UK government’s English expenditure. Hence a new funding model would be needed.
How should an English Parliament relate to sub-national bodies such as city-regions? In debates about how to respond to the English question an English Parliament and regional devolution within England are often presented as alternatives. But in practice might it be desirable to have both? 

What implications would an English Parliament have for the UK parliament and government? Many proponents of an English Parliament suggest that the establishment of an English Parliament should lead to a reduction in the number of members of the UK parliament and perhaps even the abolition of one chamber. Frank Field, for instance, suggests reducing the UK parliament to a Senate of 250 members. In a report published in 2015 the Constitution Reform Group, headed by Lord Salisbury, stated that ‘it will almost certainly be a design specification for any new English Parliament proposal that it results in and accommodates at least a corresponding reduction in the size and cost of the Westminster Parliament’ (p. 23). A separate English Parliament would clearly also have major implications for Whitehall.
We are aware that there will be a range of views on these questions. We are hence today launching a consultation that will close on 27 January 2017. This is not about whether or not there should be an English Parliament but about how such a parliament should be designed were it to be established. It is also designed to tease out the diversity of views, and get a sense for whether there is any viable model around which proponents might unite. 

It should be stressed that our consultation is not an opinion poll where responses will be counted up in order to measure the balance of opinion. We are seeking fairly detailed responses and particularly encourage responses from those who have given these questions considerable thought, and/or who have expertise in areas such as electoral systems, federalism, subnational government or devolution finance. We very much look forward to reading what respondents say, and this will guide our research as well as helping us to formulate our conclusions. We plan to publish our report late in 2017, and before then will include updates on the Constitution Unit blog. 

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=45751
About the authors
Jack Sheldon is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, working on the Options for an English Parliament project. He is also editor of the Constitution Unit newsletter and blog.
Professor Meg Russell is the Director of the Constitution Unit.

CAMPAIGN FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT (CEP) GETS ACADEMIC ACCOLADE

 

CAMPAIGN FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT GETS ACADEMIC ACCOLADE


On Thursday evening I had the great satisfaction of seeing Eddie Bone, the Campaign Director for the Campaign for an English Parliament welcomed to the rostrum to speak at the University of Winchester on the subject of English Governance by the former Labour Minister and now Professor, John Denham.

Eddie gave a very good speech. The text of which appears below and which deserves careful study.

Whilst we have not yet achieved our Brexit or Trump’s triumphal moment yet, the English movement’s trajectory is very encouraging for our future.

Whilst to quote Trump “No-one expected it to be easy”, I am hopeful that when the moment of trial comes we shall be ready!

Here is the text of Eddie’s speech:

There is a forgotten –

nay almost forbidden word,

. . . . a word which means more to me than any other. . . .

That word is

“ENGLAND”

Sir Winston Churchill.

Tonight, I stand here unashamedly as an Englishman talking about England and how we should be governed. I will also be talking about how England fits within the UK and ask you ponder the possibilities that are open to us. When we say, we love our country, England… that it means more than anything to us…. We need to establish what our history tells us about ourselves, our sense of belonging, and our sense of fight and if being English now is any different than our forefathers.

We can only hope to get close to understanding where we are now as a nation by looking at characters from our past and by picking out stories and quotes. Those lessons from our history should resonate with our code of values now. It is the personalities of our past that inspire us, at times will give us courage and in times of need give us comfort and reassurance that we will overcome adversity.

By looking back, we can walk ahead with confidence and be there for England when needed, which is now!!!

But how bad is it? Am I exaggerating, does England need us to stand up and be counted. Let me explain how bad the current situation is….

Since England has no constitutional or political existence of itself it could be argued that England is the last British colony.

Indeed, the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes England thus:

‘Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and even with the entire United Kingdom. Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has secured the perpetuation of its name, England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit—unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which all have varying degrees of self-government in domestic affairs.

In many ways England, has seemingly been absorbed within the larger mass of Great Britain since the Act of Union of 1707.’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2004)

Please just contemplate how serious that is – England no longer officially exists!

However, that situation is made worse because there is grit in the wound because we also need to remember and be aware, that alongside England’s political non-existence, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have dedicated governments focusing on their national economic growth strategies for their respective nations. They have a national strategy, a national vision and a government structure equipped to turn that vision into a reality.

England does not have a national government, nor does it have a vision or main party political manifestos for the people of England.

Devolution has continued to leave England wanting in terms of a national vision or strategy and that needs to change – and it needs to change quickly if you believe in saving the Union. If not, then independence for England versus England disappearing is on the table. – what is your choice???

This is because a void in England’s democracy exists and the lack of her governance has allowed instability and dissatisfaction amongst the English to grow. Far too much attention has been given to the SNP and their lust for independence, whilst England and the English annoyance has been simmering quietly on the side.

You only need to look at the Political parties and Labour to see that they are running around as headless chickens, fretting over losing Scotland and Wales because they cannot face loving England. Political fools come to mind because it will be only through English engagement that they will return to power.

However now that one of UKIP’s potential leaders has declared he wants an English parliament then Labour’s rejection of England and its misplaced love of regionalisation of the English nation, in other terms the break of England, will see UKIP usurp them. I feel sorry for Labour having to put up with Gordon Brown’s celebration of the Scottish and Welsh nations but the utter rejection of England’s right for national determination. His words could easily be construed as anti- English racism.

So, it will be interesting to see if this new UKIP’s vision to save the UK means an English administration and an English First Minister.

Instead of tackling a usurper, Labour and the Conservatives would rather pretend that Devolution at a local level is developing in England, but that is not true because it is confused and dysfunctional Devolution and it is not giving a true voice to people across all of England.

City versus rural, City versus town and village, industrial areas versus agricultural areas. How much better it would be to have rational, coherent and structured de-centralisation of power linked at the conception of an English parliament towards local communities.

It was right when the last government, the coalition came to power, that they dismantled the hugely unpopular regional governments and regional QUANGOS but they failed to address the problem as they didn’t replace it with anything substantial. That should have been an English Parliament, accountable to the people of England. A national federal system should have been created then. The British government let the English down and by doing that they let the UK down because they broke the principles of the 1707 Act of Union and treated citizens across the UK differently.

Instead after the Scottish referendum the Conservative Government introduced English Votes for English Laws which upset the Scots and English at the same time. English Votes for English Laws will fail to address the English Question for the following reasons:
It is a procedural device, without the force of legislation, which can be reversed at any time. 

The votes of English MPs can still be overturned as seen when English voting for extended Sunday trading was overturned by the votes of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament. 

It does not restrict the ability of a government at Westminster to appoint Ministers for English affairs from other countries of the UK
English laws are still proposed by a British Government and revised and scrutinized by a House of Lords, containing members from across the UK, whereas the laws passed by the devolved administrations are not subject to scrutiny by the Upper House.
There is no administration devoted to English affairs and membership of select committees for English matters include members of the SNP, who can influence decisions on policy for England 

It does not address the lack of representation of England per se either within the UK or internationally as in the EU or the British/Irish council.

Also, we, in this room and family across our country cannot ignore the financial reality that has occurred over the decades, the British government Red or blue has treated England’s taxpayer as a cash cow.

They haven’t listened to the concerns of English men and women; all they have wanted is their money. Yes, I am talking about the Barnett formula. The British Elite should feel ashamed of themselves for not abolishing the Barnett formula but unfortunately they do not.

In fact, they have pledged to keep favouring the Scots in naive belief that the SNP will be bought off. I talk from personal experience sitting in Edinburgh with SNP Special advisers they were clear they would take whatever they could financially from the British government. That means the English taxpayer will be expected to cough up even more.

The House of Lords report from 2009 cannot be ignored. The English taxpayer finances the Union. The amount of surplus money that goes to Scotland every year is £10 Billion. Heathrow expansion under Barnett consequential give the SNP at a minimum £500 Million of English taxes. For every 10 billion spent in England on Capital projects a further billion must be given to Scotland.

England has had to guarantee the Scottish Banks and compensate county councils for their adventures investing with Icelandic Banks – the list is endless.

England is now reeling under severe financial pressures that the Barnett formula has created. Closures of A&E departments and council services across England is wide spread.

We know what will work and what has not, irrational, incoherent and messy regionalisation of England is not the answer

Without a coherent English Government, issues such as the effective development of key strategies for England cannot be properly developed.

It is clear for all to see.

The needs of England differ significantly from the needs of Scotland and Wales. Not only in terms of England’s size, but the economic issues that England needs to address are quite different. Therefore, a dedicated English (rather than British wide) Governmental structure is needed to develop policy for areas, ranging from health to housing.

YET for far too long objections to an English Parliament have just been accepted without question.

We have heard many saying that the British Parliament is already dominated by British MPs from England and they can represent the interests of England within the British Parliament, it is essentially an English parliament because English constituencies make up over 80% of MPs, so the influence of Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs is marginal.

But that is to ignore the obvious. Just look at the influence of Scottish MPs – they are anything but marginal. Unaccountable SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs have overturned, or worse helped enforce policy on England. A mosquito can kill a man and the SNP without a healthy England is killing the UK.

The British Parliament continues to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom and it contains MPs from throughout the UK and pursues the internal and external interests of the whole UK.

It is under no obligation to pursue specific interests relating to the whole of England and there is no body through which those interests can be voiced. The House of Commons splits along party lines, not along national lines.

Moreover, a Union parliament should not encourage ‘English MPs’ – who are British MPs who happen to be elected in England – to be nationalistic and act in England’s interest.

The British Government should put the interests of the UK above the interests of any of the nations. Neither the Union parliament, nor the British Government, can or should be encouraged to ‘speak for England’.

Only a parliament and government elected by, and accountable solely to, the English people can speak for England. Just think, ‘possibly proportional representation’ could be introduced in a new parliament if that was the will of the English people.

Then we have the old classic objection that suggests an English Parliament would be almost as big as the British Parliament and England would dominate a federal Union

That demonstrates a fundamental and unnecessary assumption that the British Parliament would need to be of the same size as it is now.

That assumption ignores or denies that the work of the British Parliament would be very substantially reduced and thus a much smaller Parliament would can represent the constituent parts of the Union.

We already have the situation where many British MPs from areas outside England, cannot initiate, debate or vote on domestic matters that affect them and their constituents, yet they are being paid the same salary as British MPs from English constituencies. Indeed, the Scots, themselves, are asking why they, as British tax payers, are paying for British Government MPs who have no responsibility in the domestic matters that most concern them as voters.

Then I use the word ‘dominate’, because that very quickly rolls off the tongues of Scottish, Welsh politicians and British politicians when an English parliament is suggested – and I agree. ‘no-one wants to be dominated’, but England representing 55 million will dominate under any system, it is the largest nation of the UK.

BUT there is less chance of non-English concerns being rolled out across the UK under a federal system because domestic issues would be separated. Federalism allows the smaller nations of the UK equal ownership of British institutions of governance. Moreover, a federal or confederal system where there is such disparity in size of the members has never been shown not to work. Again, the opposite is true, just look at the USA and Australia. AND if the SNP doesn’t like being dominated then why are they involved as unaccountable MPs in the British Parliament as it concerns itself with predominately English domestic matters.

Then cost is used to block it. It could potentially mean creating another Parliament building with a whole new set of politicians. This would impose an added cost on the taxpayer.

It would create a new layer of politicians but not necessarily a new parliament building. Savings could be made by completely abolishing regionalism and restoring and enhancing governance to ‘little regions’ that already exist called counties. It would means reducing the number of British MPs, and possibly abolishing the House of Lords in favour of a federal parliament. That is worth thinking about, maybe the time has come to wave goodbye to these unelected individuals who appear at times to want to block the will of the people.

Moreover, these costs were clearly not a reason considered very important when granting devolution to the rest of the UK. Why then should the argument that we must not have more MPs be used selectively against English aspirations? Of course, it hardly needs to be said that the cost of setting up an English parliament and government is, on a per capita basis, far less than the cost of setting up the equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Others say that there is no demand.

Clearly, until a proper referendum, based on those of Scotland and Wales, takes place that assertion cannot be demonstrated. However, a significant number of polls of every description since 2001 indicate a majority of the people of England might vote for an English Parliament if asked the same referendum question as was offered to Scotland and Wales.

And then we finally go to party politics and you hear the concerns that an English Parliament would be permanently dominated by the Conservative Party.

That is not even worth answering as it so obviously not true….

This denial of English democratic needs means that the lack of forward planning is impacting on the English quality of life, our lives – prevention of overcrowding and preservation of green spaces etc. These issues need to be carefully considered. Or are you happy for your forests to be sold off, your village greens to be used or your beaches to become privatised.

Let’s take industrial strategy as an example – all I ask is that you think about this.

What kind of industries does England need to develop if we are to provide the kind of wealth creation necessary to finance an ever-growing population especially with the elderly living longer?

Rebalancing the economy away from financial services into manufacturing and hi- tech industries needs policies and incentives. To do that needs the younger generation to be involved across England.

Yet if you look at the education in England – you see English students dealing with a disproportionate cost for their university education when compared to Scotland and Wales.

Full Tuition fees are only applicable to English based students. What a slap in the face for the tax burdened English. This could not be a clearer example, the equal treatment of all people within the Union which is fundamental core value is happening. It has created unbearable financial and political strains which are in danger of breaking the union unless fair and equitable solutions to the financing of education can be properly developed.

If not, then English independence might be the only way forward. Why, who thinks it is fair that English taxpayers unfairly subsidise the education of Welsh and Scottish students whilst having to pay large sums for their own children?

English independence would give England full fiscal autonomy and the Barnett formula and Barnett consequential would be abolished end. That is 49 billion a year saving.

But how many times have you heard when an Englishman/woman complains about the unfairness – that he is a poorly educated, part of the left behind generation, that he is a fascist/racist, a fool and a duped far right. Nonsense.

That kind of anti-English sentiment weakens the bonds of the Union and breeds discontent amongst English taxpayers who are being exploited for their taxes. Be assured that is just a way of shutting the wider population in England up by an out of touch British elite. Look above those insults because it is only done so they can continue to empty your pockets of your hard-earned taxes.

For England to have good policies developed to meet her needs, she also requires a political party to address the people of England, in the same way the political parties deal with the specific and much smaller needs of those of the Welsh and Scottish.

But England also requires the political will of her people and strong leaders that are ready to engage with the 55 million people living in England,

The question for every political party is “who is standing up for England”?

More importantly for Unionists – what is the Union without England?

But take heart – England has had strong leaders in our past.

So, let me take you through a brief look at some events from English history. As mentioned at the start our past, should give us all confidence. These individuals mentioned knew that what England meant to them and they were not afraid to say how they felt, even if it cost them their lives. I have picked them for reasons.

Let’s start in AD 61 Boadicea, Warrior Queen

Before battle somewhere in the Midlands probably just north of Coventry in front of her troops

“I am fighting for my lost freedom, my bruised body and my outraged daughters. Win this battle or perish that is what I, a woman plan to do, let the men live in slavery, if they want to”.

Yes. Boadicea battled for her honour, but she also battled for

her people’s rights and liberty….

Let’s move forward to a character called Byrthnoth in 991

Because standing above the mud flats of Maldon in Essex before and in defiance of the Vikings he let us all know how he felt about protecting England. He said: –

“Listen Messenger, take back my reply

…That a noble earl and his troops stand here

Guardians of the people and of the country, the home of Aethelred, my prince –who will defend this land to the last ditch”.

He showed his entrenched love for England and her people.

And what about the events surrounding Simon De Montfort in 1265. Many of us will know this story but what is of importance is that in the summer of 1258

Those wise men gathered struck a new deal for England with a statement: –

‘Our kingdom shall be ordered, rectified and reformed in keeping with what they think best.

So, we know that a new deal can be done because it has been done…. if the Will is there.

The importance of that event cannot be under estimated and it was English not British…

Then you see an individual named John Ball who in 1381 on Blackheath Common which overlooks London gave a fiery speech as he cried: –

‘that all are equal, that servitude of man to man was introduced by the wicked.

I love those words; they were English words and you see passion and resolve.

Involved in the Peasant Revolt were characters called Wat Tyler, a Kent boy and an individual called Jack Straw.

They were leaders of that rebellion and it did not start in poor and down trodden areas in England, but in rich counties. In fact, it would better to call the Peasants Revolt, the Taxpayers Revolt because then as now the tax burden was too great for the ordinary man and woman… and in a town in Essex at the end of May 1381 rebellion was sparked and at Smithfield Meadow these words were spoken by Wat Tyler: –

Again, I love these comments

‘There should equality among all people …. All men should be free.’

You see that as a country we are prepared to be counted, prepared to stand up for the needs of our fellow man.

Who hasn’t heard of Henry V but on Thursday the 24th October 1415 with a strong belief in God he stood with his troops and said:–
 
if my cause is just, i shall prevail, whatever the size of my following.

I put this in to show why we feel that we can win against the odds

Then to Tilbury we go with Queen Elizabeth and her rousing words

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman but i have the heart and stomach of a king and a king of England too.

It is no coincidence that England led the way in giving women the right to vote when you have the stories of Boadicea and Queen Elizabeth.

Then let’s move to 1620 and the Mayflower and which must be the beginning of the first written constitution 1629. You hear the commons sound defiant when Sir John Elliot

proclaimed and condemned taxation without parliamentary assent

You see the need for fair treatment has been with us for a long time

1819 Henry Hunt in St Peters Field, Manchester bellowed out the need for parliamentary reform and the right of all men to vote by secret ballot. Although great unrest occurred by 1830 Lord Grey told the House: –

‘The principle of reform is to prevent the necessity for revolution, reform is to preserve not to overthrow.’

If only our government would heed those words

Then we have the Tolpuddle Martyr’s story which is about ordinary working people combined to defend their rights. As the sun rose on 24th February 1834, George Loveless set off to work, arrested and deport/convicted of swearing a secret oath as members of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers.

When sentenced to seven years’ penal transportation, George Loveless wrote on a scrap of paper lines from the Union hymn The Gathering of the Unions:

In England, they became popular heroes and 800,000 signatures were collected for their release.

God is our guide! from field, from wave, 
From plough, from anvil, and from loom;
We come, our country’s rights to save,
And speak a tyrant faction’s doom:
We raise the watch-word liberty;
We will, we will, we will be free!

Yet now we see the Cross of St George being banned for the Tolpuddle Festival and Trade Union congresses for Scotland, Wales and Ireland but not for England.

If English Independence is to be avoided, it can easily be done within the bounds of the Union by completing the Federalisation of the United Kingdom which means providing to England the same democratic rights as have been given to the rest.

By answering once and for all the English Question and with only English elected politicians voting on English only matters.

That principle is not heresy. That principle is not an outrageous suggestion. That principle is the basis on which the Union’s democracy is based and it is up to a political party who recognises that restoring democracy to England is the only way the Union will survive into the long term. Samuel Johnson was right “He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot”. Do right by the people of England and they will not forget it.

In conclusion, I will quote another Churchill, a poet called Charles Churchill and he lived between 1731 and 1764. He stated: –

“Be England what she will. With all her faults, she is my country still”.

Those words for me are true and stirring and I hope they are for you as well. All we ask for is an English parliament so that we can be governed fairly. If that cannot be given, then English Independence is the only way forward.

Eddie Bone

Campaign Director

The Campaign for an English Parliament

Here is the link to the original >>> https://thecepreview.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/the-cep-speech-to-the-center-for-english-identity-and-politics-at-winchester-university-101116/

WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?


WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?
 
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have their own Parliaments or Assemblies and their own national Governments and First Ministers. It is only England of all the Nations of the “United” Kingdom that is subject to direct rule from the British Establishment authorities in Whitehall and Westminster.

So when British national politicians talk about the NHS, the only NHS that they have control over is the English NHS. When they talk about building more houses and creating developments in our towns and countryside, again the British Establishment authorities only have powers to do so over England. These are the areas compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over which the English have no equivalent say:-


Scotland
Wales
N. Ireland
LAW AND ORDER
Justice
Exclusive
Exclusive
Civil Law
Exclusive
Exclusive
Criminal Law
Shared
Exclusive
Vehicle licensing
Exclusive
Exclusive
Local Administration Organisation & Finance
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Elections
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Civil register
Exclusive
Exclusive
Police
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Prisons
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Fire services
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
SOCIAL & HEALTH POLICY
Public Pensions (devolved administration)
Shared
Shared
Pensions & Child Support
Parity[52]
Health Service
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social Services ( Housing & Student Support)
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social welfare
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
food safety and standards
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT
Taxation
Shared
Subject to referendum
Shared
Urban Planning
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Environment
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Housing
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Transport
Shared
Shared
Shared
Economic Development
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Agricult., Forestary & Fisheries
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
CULTURE & EDUCATION
Culture/language
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Primary & Secondary Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
University & Professional Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Sport & recreation
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
RESOURCES & SPENDING
Own Tax resources
Yes
Subject to referendum
No
Allocation by UK Government
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Other resources
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
Devolved Spending as % of total public spending
63%
60%
50%


So housing policy for England is decided by the British Government. The other Nations decide how many houses to build for themselves. Pensions are ‘shared’ which means 90% of Scottish pensions are paid from English tax. Also the British Government can only sell English assets they cannot sell property of the other countries. So if they want to raise money to spend anywhere in the UK they can only sell English assets for that purpose. Every aspect of national policy in England is decided by the British Government.

In the British Parliament itself it is no surprise that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament have as much constitutional right to get involved in discussions about what happens in England as any MP for an English seat would have. In addition, of course, the political parties that are represented in the British Parliament for England are all British parties rather than specifically English and many of the MPs who represent English seats are Scottish or Welsh whereas no English people are elected to office in Scotland or Wales. So the absence of an English Parliament does mean the English interests are not properly represented.

The wider problem is of course that there is not only an English Parliament but there is also no English First Minister or any English Government, so there is no-one ensuring that England is governed in England’s national interests.

One problem that is becoming increasingly pressing is that British politicians fear that England’s size and population will imbalance the Union. Also that the English will make it difficult to continue to appease Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with English money as we become more assertive about our Nation. The British Establishment’s answer to these problems is to try to break England up into “Regions”.

The English Democrats are wholly against England being broken up into “Regions”. Regionalisation is not equivalent to national devolution to the Scottish and Welsh. That is not to say of course that the administration of England isn’t too centralised. There should be a programme of decentralisation to help re-establish our counties and our towns and cities and to make sure that we are less subject to Whitehall red tape and that our local authorities are able to be more democratically run and more accountable.

The point is that, as we move to a situation where the United Kingdom either becomes a Federal system, or more likely dissolves, England needs its own democratic Government in its own Parliament to ensure that England and the English Nation has a proper democratic voice which is heard loudly and assertively over whatever happens in the corridors of power!

750th Anniversary of the First English Parliament:- 1265 – 2015

OUR PRESS RELEASE

20th January – English Parliament – First Meeting


The English Democrats are calling for all English people to have pride on the 20th January that our Nation held its first meeting of the first Parliament on the 20th January 1265. This Parliament is the ancestor of every Parliament on earth today and is one of the many unique, historic and important contributions the English Nation has made to the foundation of the modern world and in creating representative democracy.

Whilst Simon de Montfort’s Parliament in 1265 was a revolutionary development, subsequent adoption by Edward I of Parliament and its embodiment into Medieval English Royal Government was a reflection of Parliament’s usefulness in getting consent for Royal tax raising powers.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Sadly on the 20th January 2015 almost unnoticed by officialdom in England there will pass an anniversary which demonstrates even more than the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, how ancient some of England’s institutions are.”

“The Earl of Leicester, Simon de Montfort, called his parliament the first proper English Parliament on the 20th January 1265 and so began the progress towards representative democracy.”

“A progress which has been of huge importance, not only in English history, but in the history of the entire modern world and is yet another unique and hugely significant contribution of the English Nation to the culture of the whole human race!”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

BIASED OR A JOKE? THE NEWSPAPER THAT SUPPORTS EDDIE IZZARD FOR MAYOR OF LONDON


IS A NEWSPAPER THAT SUPPORTS EDDIE IZZARD FOR MAYOR OF LONDON BIASED OR A JOKE?

The London ‘newspaper’, the Evening Standard, recently announced that it is supporting the unfunny Leftist ‘comedian’ Eddie Izzard to be the next Mayor of London for Labour. So much for their editorial team’s commonsense – clearly a JOKE! But what about their BIAS?

I recently put out this:-

“Scottish Independence: London and Scotland need each other” Debate – June 30 in London’s Guild Hall London Evening Standard | Scotland

“So do London and Scotland need each other in a Union, or will both manage just fine if Scotland votes for independence? That is the topic for a major public debate, jointly hosted by the Evening Standard and the City of London at Guildhall. Leading public figures taking part as panellists (sic) include:-” NOT ONE SINGLE ENGLISHMAN OR ENGLISHWOMAN!

Parody and/or Propaganda? Bias and/or B…….?”

As ever with the usual Media/Political Class arrogance the event went ahead unchanged and the CEP staged a very effective demonstration as reported here:-

Three members of the Campaign team for the CEP attended the Evening Standard Scottish Independence event in London on Monday night (30 June 2014) where six Scottish speakers (three Brit Scots and three Nationalist Scots) debated the relationship between England and Scotland. Not one clearly defined English voice was included on the debating panel. We highlighted the incongruity of a debate where only one side is represented.

Just imagine if six Englishman went to Edinburgh to debate Scotland’s relationship with England and suggested that Scotland could be better governed by breaking her up into smaller pieces, or regionalised. There would be outrage and rightly so. As such the debate was biased and missed several obvious points. To show how this debate failed the people of England we stood with a huge St George cross, mounted on a 10ft pole at the back of the Guildhall where the event was held and stuck tape over our mouths. We were mentioned by the debating panel no less than three times but still we were otherwise ignored.

We have attempted to contact the Evening Standard’s editor, both before and after the event but currently we have been met with silence. Maybe it’s the silence of the guilty. IF NOT IT SHOULD BE!

I was asked to comment by the Evening Standard and did so as follows:-

All English Nationalists should join the English Democrats in supporting a YES vote in Scotland on the 18th September because it will trigger the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Since the end of the era great power politics, the UK has been a persistent drag on the English Nation.

The United Kingdom State is expensive, incompetently authoritarian and vain-gloriously addicted to its great power status whilst draining the wealth of England with its debts, its vanity projects, its international interventionism and its failure to focus on the best interests of the English Nation.

For the mathematically minded, the UK’s dissolution can be put as a formula:- E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E.

As the EU Commission has regularly confirmed it is only the UK which is a member of the EU. This means dissolution of the UK means that we are also all automatically out of the EU. Also the debts are those of the UK and not England or Scotland. So the English Nation will get independence not only from the UK and from its debts but also from the EU in one easy step.

The UK failure to operate in the best interests of English people is easily shown by the extra £10,000 it spends on the average Scottish family.

If this extra money tempts Scots to vote NO then all the so called Unionist Parties are promising them yet further Devolution so all the unfairness and discrimination against the English Nation will quickly get far worse.

So come on Scotland vote YES on the 18th September and give us all a fresh start as friendly neighbours outside the UK and its debts and outside of the EU!

Here is the Standard’s report. Not only no mention of the CEP or the lack of an English voice but also an emasculated version of my comment at the end. So never mind Greeks bearing Gifts – watch out for the Standard telling tall tales!

Scottish Independence: England must send ‘love letter’ north of the border

David Churchill      Published: 01 July 2014

England needs to send a “love letter” to Scotland if it wants to save the marriage of the UK, a major debate on independence heard.

The plea to show Scots more respect and affection came from Penrith and The Border MP Rory Stewart and human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy QC at a packed Guildhall for the Evening Standard debate ahead of September’s referendum.

“What is England doing?” asked Tory MP Mr Stewart. “It seems to be dealing with the situation much as if your partner tells you they are going to leave you.

In the chair: Emily Maitlis directed the passionate debate at Guildhall (Picture: Nigel Howard) “England seems to be doing one of two things, either saying ‘oh you’ll never be able to afford it, you’re never going to be able to go out on your own, you’ll regret it, you’ll come back soon’.

“Or even worse, we seem to be sitting in our armchair saying ‘well, it’s up to you if you want to do it, but it’s nothing to do with me’.

“If we wish to keep this country together, we need to say something else. We need to say ‘we love you’.”

The panel, chaired by the BBC Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis, included Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, Scottish National Party MP Stewart Hosie, businesswoman Michelle Thomson and Scottish comedian Hardeep Singh Kohli.

Baroness Kennedy, a “proud” Scot who would “hate” to see a severance, urged: “We have to say to them, ‘your contribution is vital and hasn’t been listened to enough’, let’s talk about liberal democracy, let’s talk about the values we all share?…?that’s the love letter that will bring Scots together with the English to create a better kind of United Kingdom.”

Today, a new poll claimed Scottish voters are turning away from Alex Salmond’s dream of independence. Excluding the don’t knows, the Yes vote is trailing by 39 per cent to 61 percent, said the YouGov/Times survey. That was a shift from 42 and 58 in March, suggesting the No campaign is pulling ahead.

Scotland’s ability to control its own tax revenues, welfare and economic growth were at the heart of passionate clashes in last night’s debate. Mr Alexander promised extra powers if Scotland stays, including control over income tax, capital gains and inheritance taxes — giving it the power to raise “over half” of revenues.

He added: “Nationalism is fundamentally about putting up barriers, liberalism is about taking those barriers down. In the UK we have the best of both worlds, let’s keep it that way.”

But Mr Hosie retorted: “What we are seeking is not segregation, it’s not ethnic nationalism.

“It’s about equipping our [Scottish] government with all the tools and powers it needs to improve the life chances of the people of Scotland.”

He said Scotland was not dependent on London or the UK, saying that for the last 50 years “every man woman and child in Scotland has contributed £1,500 more every year in tax than the UK average”.

Ms Thomson, representing the business community, said: “As Vince Cable said, London is becoming a giant sucking machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. Does London need Scotland to thrive? No. Does Scotland need London to thrive? No.”

Hardeep Singh Kohli joked that hatred for the English dissipated “a few weeks ago” when England was knocked out of the World Cup, adding: “The reason why Scottish independence is so important is?…?we [Scots] know who we are. The single biggest beneficiary of Scottish independence will be England. Your body politic is rotting, your House of Commons is full of charlatans and thieves. That’s the truth.”

For the Union

Helena Kennedy, Barrister and member of the Lords:

“I am a proud Scot. I love Scotland. But I love London and I am very clear it is my city. I love its diversity, entrepreneurialism, cultural capacity, pulse and its power. This city is very much one young Scots look to and are stimulated by and they bring the experience they’ve had with them. I would hate to see a severance of the links. The cost of structural change is an issue. No one has clear figures as to what it would cost to create embassies around the world, the creation of security services an independent Scotland would need. The way forward is about working together to solve the problems that are confronting us in the face of globalisation.”

Danny Alexander. Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

“We in Scotland face the most important decision we will ever make. A decision in which there is no going back. We are much better, stronger and influential together than apart. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are the most successful family of nations ever known, with a stronger future united. Scotland is a hugely successful nation. London is a hugely successful city. And we’re successful because we are part of one United Kingdom. Success comes, for example, from the deep-rooted links between London and Scotland, deep links in science, finance and the arts.”

Rory Stewart, Tory MP for Penrith and the Border:

“This campaign has unlocked a real energy in Scottish politics. Scots have never been so serious and so engaged, in fact in some ways coming back into England can feel like a deflating experience. What we need to find is not an event that is temporary, 15 minutes of holding hands, but something much more permanent, something symbolic but which in the end has to be the rebuilding of our country, which recognises that in the end the arguments are on the side of union, not division. The challenge is reaching out and embracing the North and embracing the areas that are doing less well [than London].”

For Independence


Hardeep Singh Kohli, Scottish comedian:

“This isn’t about our hatred of the English, that dissipated when you got knocked out [of the World Cup]. I’m the child of an immigrant. My people come from north-west India, surely by extension of a ‘better together’ argument, India should have stayed together with Britain? There was a documentary on BBC Scotland some years ago about what the English really think of the Scots, and the reality is, not a great deal.We’re just not on their radar. We know who we are. The biggest beneficiary of Scottish independence will be England. Your body politic is rotting, your House of Commons is full of charlatans and thieves.”

Michelle Thomson, MD Business for Scotland:

“Given that we recognise the Scots as a nation and the current UK as a grouping of nations, then we must also recognise the right of those nations within that union to exercise self-determination. London is an economic powerhouse, perhaps even a city state. As Vince Cable said, London is becoming a giant sucking machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. Shouldn’t Scotland embrace the healthy ambition that suggests it should be so much more? Independence is about the sovereign nation of Scotland taking accountability.”

Stewart Hosie, SNP MP:

“Do we need each other? Probably. Every nation, every city, every region on the face of the planet is interconnected. We all need each other in every way. But what we are seeking is not segregation, it’s not ethnic nationalism, it’s not putting up a wall, we’re not going to dig a trench across the border. Independence is normal, absolutely normal. The ability of our nation to elect its own government, to get the government it elects, every time, not just some of the time, and for that government to have all the powers every other government takes for granted, to improve the lot of the Scottish people.”

Letters to the editor: The issues in the Scottish debate

Last night’s debate illustrated the myth of the Scottish Yes campaign’s supposed positivity.
Stewart Hosie MP’s defence of a break-up on the grounds of “increased prosperity, social justice and fairness” is an exclusive vision of prosperity and social justice for Scots alone.
The Yes side argued that the UK is broken, corrupt and finished, and Scotland is therefore justified in seeking an exit. Even if the UK fitted that description, it would be even more reason for staying together and cooperating to find solutions in future.
The main policies proposed by the Scottish government (tax “competition”, possible national debt default, North Sea oil reallocation, Trident relocation, for example) is to extract resources from UK taxpayers and population. Trying to frame it as a struggle for liberty and freedom is beyond absurd.
A vote for No is a vote against intolerance, exclusivity and division. I hope the majority of Scots, for all our sakes, feel the same way.
Ollie Shipway

Since the end of the era of great power politics, the UK has been a persistent drag on the English nation.
The UK State, vaingloriously addicted to great power status, drains England’s wealth through prodigal spending and international interventionism.
As the European Commission has regularly confirmed, it is the UK not its constituent nations which is a member of the EU. Scottish independence also means the untying of the relationship with Northern Ireland, which postdates the 1707 Union of Parliaments. The dissolution of the UK by this means implies we are automatically out of the EU.
The UK’s failure to operate in the best interests of English people is amply demonstrated by the extra £10,000 it spends on the average Scottish family.
The promise of yet further devolution by all the main parties in the event of a No vote means all the unfairness and discrimination against the English is set to worsen.
All proud Englishmen and women should hope Scotland votes Yes in September to give us all a fresh start as friendly neighbours outside the UK.
Robin Tilbrook, English Democrats

Here is a link to the original >>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-independence-england-should-send-scotland-a-love-letter-to-save-our-marriage-9576568.html?=version1

YOU COULD OWE £6,000 MORE IF SCOTLAND BECOMES A “NEW” STATE!

YOU COULD OWE £6,000 MORE IF SCOTLAND BECOMES A “NEW” STATE!


Although the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament are in some sense sister organisations, we haven’t always seen eye to eye on every issue, but the Campaign for an English Parliament has kept going over the years campaigning for proper and fair constitutional recognition for England.  It has recently made two submissions to the House of Lords Committee’s Inquiry on the implications for the “rest of the UK” if Scotland goes independent. 

The second submission looks critically at Nicola Sturgeon’s submission on behalf of the Scottish Government, in which she made it clear that the SNP’s negotiating position on the question of Scotland being a new State is going to be that in that case Scotland is not liable for the UK’s debt. 

My suspicion is that Alex Salmond and his team have thought very carefully about what they put in their proposal for Scottish Independence and included in it several tank traps which they fully expected the arrogant and ignorant and unprincipled, short-termist Westminster politicians and British Political and Media Establishment to fall into. 

Such a one is the question of Scotland keeping the pound and having involvement with decision making at the Bank of England. 

All three Establishment parties conspired together to attack this proposal at the same time.  They obviously hadn’t thought through their position.  Because by arguing that there could be such a thing as the “rest of the UK” (rUK) and that Scotland would be a new State (and therefore said that they would have to apply for all sorts of things that the SNP wanted, like being in the EU), they failed to realise that by making that attack they were arguing that under International Law, the new State of Scotland would not be liable for any of the old State’s liabilities. 

So in effect, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Balls and Miliband have managed to argue that constitutionally the new Scotland should not be liable to pay a penny for its share of the British Government’s debt.  Not even for the billions spent under Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling for propping up Scottish banks!

Recently a long-standing member of the Party has sent me in a letter that he has had from his MP, Danny Alexander, the Scottish Liberal Democrat, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who in his letter says that Scotland’s share of the British Government debt is £120bn.  However I think it is worth looking at the good work that the Campaign for an English Parliament has done in reply to Nicola Sturgeon’s submission to the House of Lords inquiry. 

Below is the article and here is the table that the CEP have prepared. 

It looks like the incompetence of the British Establishment is likely to land all those of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with an additional debt of £1,737 for every man, woman and child.  Perhaps even more realistically that would be approaching £6,000 extra for every English tax-payer. 

If you are not keen on Scottish Independence you might feel further disgruntled if you take notice of what has happened to the opinion polls since the concerted attack on the SNP over this: Support for Scottish Independence amongst those likely to vote has increased quite considerably.  So not only have Lib/Lab/Con probably landed us with larger bills but they have also failed in their objective of reducing support for Scottish Independence!  What a brilliantly effective tank trap that was Alex! 

Here is the article:-
 

Debt bombshell if Scotland quits UK


TAXPAYERS from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in line for a £1,737 debt bombshell if Scotland quits the UK, campaigners have warned.
Alex Salmond has said an independent Scotland would walk away from the UK’s massive national debt if it is blocked from sharing the pound.
The UK owes around £1.2TRILLION – equivalent to £18,993 per head if shared equally among UK nations, the Campaign for an English Parliament said.
But if Scotland votes “yes” in September’s referendum, the individual debt burden would rise to £20,730. This would likely lead to more cuts to public services or rising taxes as the Government battles to get the UK’s finances under control, the group claimed.
Its stark warning is laid bare in written evidence submitted to the Lords Constitution Committee, which is exploring the constitutional implications of Scottish independence for the rest of the UK. Chancellor George Osborne has rejected the prospect of Scotland keeping the pound if it becomes independent. He is backed by Labour and the Lib Dems.
But last month Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond warned that his decision would “backfire spectacularly”. The SNP boss said Scotland would only take on its share of the national debt if it kept a slice of “shared UK assets” like the currency. “All the debt accrued up to the point of independence belongs legally to the Treasury,” he warned. “And Scotland can’t default on debt that’s not legally ours.”
Eddie Bone, director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, said it was clear Scotland could legally get out of paying its share of the UK debt. “I have no doubt that will impact on our public services and possibly lead to higher taxes in the rest of the UK,” he said. “The English need to be given their own political voice so they are able to protect their assets.”
Britain’s national debt currently stands at just over £1,200,000,000,000 and is rising. As of 2011, there were 63,181,775 people living in the UK. That means a debt cost per head of £18,993.
Without Scotland paying its £100million share (divided between 5.3m people), the cost per person in England, Wales and Northern Ireland rises to £20,730.
Some 84 per cent of the UK population live in England, while 8.4 per cent live in Scotland, 4.8 per cent in Wales and 2.9 per cent in Northern Ireland.
http://www.thecep.org.uk/2014/03/26/debt-bombshell-if-scotland-quits-uk/