Category Archives: Celts

SCOTCH NUMPTY PARTY  XMAS NOVELTIES 2016

Single Party State Monopoly

A boardgame  for four or more players.

The object of the game is to capture all the MSP seats.

Weighted dice ensure SNP always win

 

Wee Pretendy Parliament   Kit

When assembled  looks to the casual glance  like a  real parliament  with powers to tax  and spend

WARNING Complaints that the tax functions do not work are being investigated

 

Independence Challenge!

Virtual reality site in which players attempt to be build an  independent Scotland

Fiendishly difficult but great  for lovers of fantasy

 

Brexit Cube

Intriguing puzzle which requires the player to remain part of the EU whilst staying in the UK after Brexit

See how quickly you can make it fit together

 

Nicola Sturgeon Doll

Whines incessantly when activated

Has a store of  hilarious Catch Phrases such as

“Scotland pays its way”; “Scotland would be richer after independence” and “Scotland wants to become independent by being a member of the  EU”

Uncannily lifelike

Powered by four AA batteries.

 

Guess the oil tax revenue sweepstake

Players  write down  what they think will be the oil  tax revenue will be in  twelve months’   time

Hours of innocent  fun

WARNING SNP supporters with bad hearts are advised not to play

 

Model  Hospital

Comes complete with plastic figures representing patients, doctors and nurses

WARNING: Due to problems with the finance  and the suppliers there are very few doctors and nurses  but huge numbers of  patients

Just like the real thing

 

Make your own school exam Grade inflation kit

Too  few children  are passing exams?  No problem. Our grade inflation kit will soon put that right..

Just drop the pass mark and  hey presto!  the problem vanishes

 

National Police Jigsaw

The jigsaw contains pieces which represent  all the police forces in Scotland that existed until recently. When completed the jigsaw design shows just one national force.

WARNING: ensure the jigsaw is kept in a safe place when finished or it will fall  apart.

 

Independence Referendum Roundabout

Toy roundabout with  a selection of  figures representing  the various parties in Scotland

Once set in motion it continues indefinitely

Made of the finest plastic

 

Saltire T-Shirts

Show  where your heart lies with a T-Shirt emblazoned at front and back with the Saltire

Made in all sizes

Buy one for the bairns

Become one of Nicola’s Blue and White Shirts

 

STOCK CLEARANCE

North Sea Oil Money Tree

A popular game with Independence supporters  for many years  but now rather old hat.

 

Alex Salmond  Jock-in-a Box

A one-time Xmas favourite  which has fallen out of favour.

Still amuses small children as he pops up with his catchphrase whine

 

HURRY HURRY HURRY WHILE THE SCOTCH NUMPTY PARTY LASTS

 

 

 

 

Killing two political birds with one stone

Resolving the UK’s unfinished devolution and the Irish border  questions

Robert Henderson

Brexit provides a wonderful opportunity to  deal simultaneously with  two major political difficulties.  These  are  the  unbalanced devolution arrangements  in the UK and   what is to be done  about the

Relationship   between  the Republic of Ireland (RoI)  and the UK after Brexit.  Both  problems  could be solved by the RoI leaving the EU at the same time as the  UK and forming a federation with the UK.

The unfinished business of  UK  devolution

Three of the four home countries – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  – have  each been granted elected assemblies or parliaments . From these are formed devolved governments which administer increasingly significant powers such as the control of policing, education and the NHS.  The  personnel of the devolved governments and assemblies/parliaments  have by their words and actions made it clear that  do not think of the national interest of the UK but  of what is best for  their  particular home country.

The fourth home country England has neither an assembly nor a government and consequently no body of politicians to speak for England and to look after her interests.   A procedure to have only  MPs sitting for  English seats  voting on English only legislation  (English votes for English laws or EVEL for short)  began a trial in 2015,  but  it  has few teeth because  it is difficult to disentangle what is English only  legislation, not least  because  MPs  for seats outside of England argue  that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly  England , unlike Scotland,  Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives   to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.

  The House of Lords review of its first year  in operation makes EVEL’s  limitations clear:

The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislation or provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.

Yet English MPs’ ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them

Not content with denying England a parliament and government of her own the UK government  has made strenuous efforts to Balkanise England by forcing elected mayors on cities and  the devolution of considerable  powers  to local authority areas built around cities  with Manchester in the vanguard of this development.   The ostensible  idea of this Balkanisation is to pretend that an English parliament and government is not necessary because devolution is being delivered on a regional basis to England: its covert intention is to ensure that  England cannot act as a political entity in its own right and have its representatives  asking  awkward questions such as why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  receiving so much more  per capita from the  Treasury each year than England receives.( The latest figures are: Scotland £10,536 per person,  Northern Ireland, £10,983  per person,  Wales £9,996  per person, England  £8,816 per person).

To balance the devolution settlement in the UK England needs a parliament and a government, not just to give her parity  with the other home countries, but to prevent the Balkanisation of England.  This could be done simply and without great expense by  returning   the Westminster Parliament to what it was originally, the English Parliament.   It could also function as the federal Parliament when that was required  to convene .  Hence, no new  parliament building would be required. Members of the Federal Parliament would be the elected representatives of the devolved assemblies of the four Home Countries and what is now the RoI.

The Republic of Ireland

Should the RoI decide to remain as a member of the EU she risks a hard border this  would  potentially mean an end to the free movement between the UK and the RoI and   the RoI having to deal with EU imposed tariffs on imports from the UK and UK reciprocal tariffs on goods exported by the RoI to the UK. It is important to understand that a “hard” border would  not just be that between the RoI and Northern Ireland,  but between the RoI and the whole of the UK.

The land border between the RoI and Northern Ireland   creates  two potential  dangers for the UK.   It could operate as a back door for illegal  immigrants to enter  the UK  and promote  the smuggling of goods.   At present the  UK government is attempting to foist onto the British public a nonsense which says that there  will be no need of a  “hard” border between  the RoI and Northern Ireland to prevent illegal immigration. Two lines of argument are employed to justify this.  First, that   it can be controlled by greater technological surveillance and   stricter  checks on employers, foreign benefit claimants  and landlords. Second, it is claimed that  the  fact that the UK is no longer an EU member   will mean  that the UK will be much less attractive to  people in the EU as a place to migrate to because they will not be able to get jobs or benefits.

This shows either a shocking  naivety or cynicism of a high order. The idea that people would not be able to gain employment simply because they are EU citizens ignores the fact that many illegal migrants from outside the European Economic Area  (EEA)  already do this.   Moreover, even  immigrants here legally have an incentive to work in the black market  because they  can avoid tax.

As for not paying benefits, how  would the authorities distinguish between the millions from the EU already in the UK who are almost certain to have the right to remain, and any new EU migrants?  It would be nigh on impossible.  It is remarkably easy to get a National Insurance number issued  in the UK and even if employers had stricter duties placed upon them not to employ EU citizens without a work permit or visa, there are plenty of employers who would be willing to employ those they knew were illegal because they are cheaper and more easily controlled and sacked  than British workers or theillegal  employer (this is a common thing with gangmasters)  is an immigrant  and makes a point of only employing  other immigrants from his or her  own country.  Once employed and with a National Insurance number they could claim in work benefits readily enough and probably out of work benefits too  because there is not the massive resources of manpower which would be  required to do the necessary checks on whether they  were eligible.

Whatever is said now there could not  in practice  be an open border  with the UK.   Even if  in the immediate  post-Brexit  period there  continued the present agreement between the UK and the RoI of free movement,  and this is what Theresa May is proposing, huge numbers of immigrants to the UK coming via the the RoI would create uproar amongst a British public who felt cheated that a hard border between the RoI and Northern Ireland would have to be created.

But even without the migrant question the idea that no “hard” border will be necessary  could be sunk if the EU or the UK imposes tariffs or quotas  on goods.  The ex-EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has  pointed this out forcefully:

“We have been told by a number of Conservative Party spokespeople that Britain will leave the common customs area of the EU.

“If this is true, the customs union, which relates to sharing a common external tariff of the EU, will have to be maintained by all other EU countries with the UK following its withdrawal. Goods will have to be checked at borders.”

While the RoI Foreign Secretary Charlie Flanagan has said a hard Brexit would be unworkable for Ireland.

The RoI would  have the worry that if they remained in the EU they could find themselves suddenly saddled with tariffs. If a genuine Brexit is achieved by the UK then it is possible that either the EU will place tariffs or quotas on UK goods  and the UK responds in kind or that this will happen because no agreement can be reached and the UK leaves the EU and trades under WTO rules.  This would be more than an inconvenience for the RoI because she has  very substantial economic ties to the  UK.

All these difficulties with devolution and the RoI border  would dissolve  with the creation of  a truly federal state comprised of  England,  Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland and what is now  the RoI. Such a federation would need to have  full home rule. The issues which would be left to the federal level would be important but few:  defence, foreign affairs,  control of coastal waters, customs, management of the currency  and  immigration.  This would not mean  that the policy areas reserved to the constituent countries’ parliaments  would not be brought to the federal level  without   the agreement of  the constituent countries. Large infrastructure projects such as roads and railways  covering two or more devolved jurisdictions would be a good example of the type of issue  which might be dealt with at the federal level.

Such a federation would have a good start for  England, Scotland,  Wales are all undisputed territories with no border disputes or awkward enclaves stuck in the middle of another  nation’s  territory.  The Irish  situation is more complicated,  but if the entirety of Ireland was in the new federation that would probably take much of the sting  which is left out of  the sectarian divide .  Moreover, the RoI  and Northern Ireland would still each have a separate identity and a devolved  political  class and institutions directly responsible to their respective populations.  One of the reasons for the great stability  of Great Britain (that is, England, Scotland and Wales) over the  centuries is the fact that each nation had its own territory.  That would continue under the federation I propose.

Why would the RoI join such a federation?

Why would the RoI wish to give up her independence?   They reality is that while she is part of the EU the RoI is not independent. To begin withshe  has no control of her currency  because the RoI  is part of the Eurozone. To that can be added the huge amount of control through EU regulations and directives., interferences  with national sovereignty  which a small state such as the RoI has little influence over because of the EU’s  qualified majority voting. Moreover,    the way the EU is going member states are likely to have less and less national autonomy as the federalist project proceeds.   (An alternative plausible and damaging scenario is that the EU collapses  within the next ten years , most probably through the other states wanting to follow the UK’s example and leave the EU or simply because the Euro crashes.  This would leave the RoI on her own.  )

For a long time the RoI benefitted greatly from being a net beneficiary  with more money coming to the RoI than the RoI sent to Brussels.  That is changing rapidly.  The  net payment the ROI receives from the EU no  longer huge in relation to the size of her economy  (GDP  €214.623 billion in 2015). The ROI’s  financial delings  with the EU in 2015 were:

Total EU spending in Ireland: € 2.009 billion

Total EU spending as % of Irish gross national income (GNI): 1.10 %

Total Irish contribution to the EU budget: € 1.558 billion

Irish contribution to the EU budget as % of its GNI: 0.86 %

It is probable that within the next few years the RoI will become a regular net contributor to the EU budget.

As for RoI  exports , those to  the EU have   declined by over the past year while  RoI exports to countries outside the EU grew.

Set against a  background of declining monetary benefit, weakening exports to the EU  and  increasing uncertainty  as to where the EU is going the  considerable advantages  the RoI would gain in addition to  removing the problems  a  border  between the RoI and Northern Ireland  create  begin to look decidedly attractive.

The RoI would be part of a political unit which was a significant military power,  was a permanent member of the UN Security Council and held high positions in powerful international bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The fact that the RoI is part of the Eurozone  need not be a great  problem,   because  the RoI  could immediately switch to the Pound Sterling as their currency.  This would  entail  far less upheaval than the RoI would experience if they remained in the EU and had to either leave the Euro of their own accord because it was too damaging or simply  find themselves without a currency because the Euro had collapsed.

Nonetheless I can see what an emotional wrench such a course would be  for any country which thinks of itself as a sovereign state.  That this is largely a sham whilst the RoI is within the EU  (the same applies to the UK until Brexit is achieved) is neither here nor there  if people think of a country as sovereign. Moreover, Ireland as a whole has a long and fraught history with the British mainland. Nonetheless , the RoI would have full control of her domestic matters and would actually have more control in many areas because there is so much that the EU now controls which would be left to each part of the federation.

There is also the greater question of what  the world will  be like in ten or twenty years.  Western Europe including the British Isles has enjoyed a remarkably long period of peace. That may  well not last. The threat may not come from European powers but new superpowers such as China and India.   This is not fanciful. There are approximately 7 billion people in the world at present  of whom at a most generous estimate only one billion live in the West.  It is overly sanguine to imagine that  such huge blocks of humanity  living outside the West will remain  forever without expansionist tendencies, tendencies  which could extend to Europe or even North America.  China in particular is engaged in quasi-empire building throughout the developing world.  In addition, there are strong signs that the world is casting globalisation aside with protectionist sympathies growing.   That makes the RoI’s substantial trade with the UK potentially even more important than it is now for we are likely to enter a world in which countries look to their own advantage. . Finally, there is the still largely ignored by politicians threat  of catastrophic unemployment which is almost certain to come in the next decade or two  from  the huge advances in robotics and Artificial Intelligence which will allow most existing jobs and,  most importantly,  most  new jobs which arise, to be done without human involvement .

In such an uncertain  world being part of a serious military, diplomatic and economic power could be much to the RoI’s  4.5 million population’s  advantage

 SNP XMAS NOVELTIES 2015

FORTH ROAD  BRIDGE  CONSTRUCTION SET

Have hours of fun building  the bridge then  watch it collapse just when you think it’s finished.

REFERENDUM SNAP!

The game is played with a pack of 52 cards. 51 of the cards are marked  NO REFRENDUM, one marked REFERENDUM.

WARNING  SNP supporters may find the game unbearably frustrating.

NICOLA STURGEON DOLL

Astonishingly lifelike.  Is equipped with the  latest digital technology which allows it to make any number of improbable statements such as “It’s ouir oil and it will make us rich”;  “Scotland pays more in tax to Westminster than we get back”; “An independent Scotland would be welcomed by the EU”.  Hours of hilarity guaranteed.

Can be linked with the Alec Salmond Jock-in-a-Box (see below)   which attempts to  controls the Sturgeon  doll often with  hilarious unintended results.

SNP MONOPOLY

The board is similar to an ordinary monopoly board but has squares marked with political and  public service positions such as First Minister and   Head of Police,   and buildings such as Holyrood .

All players represent   the SNP.  Players have to compete  to take as many squares as they.   The winner   is the player who controls most of the political and public service positions  and the infrastructure of Scotland by the time the game ends.

Every time a player passes GO they collect £200 of English taxpayers’ money.

SNP BBC SCOTLAND SET

Design your own SNP approved independent Scotland channel.

Put together a schedule full of classic Scots  favourites such as The White Heather Club and The Stanley Baxter show  and even more classic recordings  of Harry Lauder and Will Fyfe performing, together with  educational programmes such as Why you should vote SNP forever, The Labour Party is fascist and Tories are the new Nazis.

See what the future for broadcasting in an independent Scotland could be.

JUNIOR CYBERNAT SET

Consists of a giant Saltire duvet cover and an instruction manual  with phrases for every   occasion when anti-SNP statements are made.   Players can have unlimited fun shouting or posting “Tory scum”, “Nazis”, “Traitors”  at anyone who  does not uncritically support SNP policies.

MAGIC MONEY TREE

There is no end of money which can be got from a magic money tree. The money is monopoly cash,  but you can build everything from Castles in the Air to an Independent Scotland with it.   A tremendous fantasy toy which will be irresistible to SNP supporters.

Gas and Oil Sweepstake

Players write down their estimate of the tax derived from the Oil and Gas on the 1st of January and the person closest to the actual figure on the 31st December wins.

Tip to players: the lower you bet the more likely you are to win

 

Clearance stock  from  2014

Jock-in-a- Box

Alec Salmond figure  pops up just as reliably as it did in previous years  with an uncannily lifelike whine.

HURRY! HURRY! HURRY! WHILE STOCKS LAST

Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election

Robert Henderson

Editor’s note: Robert Henderson recently sent me a link to his article, “British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated” which discusses a survey showing a great deal of hostility toward immigration in the U.K. The question then is why are we reading that Ukip is losing ground in the polls and not expected to get more than a handful of MPs. The most recent poll, published in the Telegraph, has Ukip at 13% and 3 MPs for the May 7 election. Given that Ukip rankshighest of all the parties in the popularity of their immigration proposals, the question is why. Many of his points apply also in the United States and  elsewhere.
1. Political inertia.  The first past the post system makes it  immensely  difficult for new parties to get established as a real political force because most British constituencies have large in-built majorities for either the Labour or Conservative Parties.  This is because the nature of the populations in those constituencies are such as to make a winning vote for the  Conservatives or Labour  candidate very likely, for example, Labour safe seats will lie at the centre of major cities and towns and old industrial centres  where thy continue to capture the White working-class vote and those of ethnic/racial minorities. Safe Conservative seats will  tend to be in the suburbs and countryside.   In many constituencies people will think there is no point in voting for anyone but the almost certain winner and often will not bother to vote if they do not support the party of the probable winner.
In the years since the Restoration in 1660 and the formation of the Whigs and Tories only one entirely new party (Labour)  has every formed a government in the UK , although the Whigs transmuted into the liberals and the Tories mutated into Conservatives  during the 19th century.  The fate of the Social Democratic Party formed by four dissident leading members of the Labour Party  in the early 1980s is instructive.  It managed to win by-elections and in alliance with the then Liberal Party managed to gain 25% of the vote at the 1983 General Election. That gained the alliance a paltry  23 seats out of 650.    By the next general election the SDP was a dead duck.   The problem for the alliance was that their vote was spread much more evenly across the country than the vote of Conservative and Labour  parties.  The same applies to Ukip.
2. The fear of being called a racist runs very deep in Britain.  This is unsurprising because almost every week there are stories in the media about people, normally white Britons, being involved in a “race row”.  These incidents  will frequently  result in the person losing their job, and increasingly people accused of racism are being sent for criminal trial. The police also have a regular practice of investigating people for “hate crimes” without any  real intent to prosecute — the intention  being  to intimidate individuals and, by their example,  the general population.
3. People are subjected to incessant politically correct propaganda on race and immigration.  Those under the age of 35 will have had it blaring at them all their lives, including hard-core indoctrination at school.  [Editor’s note: Today, listening to BBC radio while driving through Scotland, there was a comment  on the drowning of 400 African “migrants“ off the coast of Italy. The comment managed to discuss the Holocaust based on survivor accounts (the Nazis came to our farmhouse and shot our dog in sight of the child) and the British involvement in the slave trade in the 18th century (where slaves were huddled together in overcrowded ships), both of which she recalled from her school days; the message was that the U.K. must be open to such people. Endless empathy and compassion needed.]
This propaganda produces a strange state of mind in many . They  do not agree with the propaganda but they  f eel that opinions which go against the propaganda are somehow beyond the Pale.   Fear lies at the root of it but it manifests itself not in a conscious focused fear but as a general sense that something should not be done or said.
4. The mainstream media  in Britain give far less time to Ukip in general and immigration matters in particular than they do to other parties and political subjects.  When Ukip speakers get onto television and radio  they are almost invariably face a more hostile questioning  than those from other parties.  If they appear on panels  with other politicians or commentators they are invariably in a minority, normally a minority of one with chairman who is biased against them.   If there is an audience the audience will invariably be packed  with people who support the politically correct view of the world. As for the written media, they get much less opportunity to publish their views than the parties who oppose them.
5. Ukip send mixed immigration messages because they try to fit what they propose into a politically correct envelope.  They advocate a points based system  such as the Australians have.  Unless the numbers are severely capped this could mean more immigration than we presently have.  Ukip are advocating a cap of 50,000 per annum on skilled workers  (which would be far  more immigrants more than the British want),  but are saying nothing coherent about immigration through family reunion, students and asylum claims which forms the major part of immigration to the UK from outside the EU.
Then there is the rhetoric. Ukip claim constantly that race/ethnicity does not matter.  They  say that that their scheme for “ managed migration”  shows they are not racist because they want everyone in the world to have the same chance of coming here if they meet the skilled worker  criteria.  The idea that Black, Brown and Yellow migrants are to be substituted  for White European migrants is unlikely to appeal to the British public.
6. Ukip also embrace the free trade mania.  As a prime  justification for leaving the EU,  Ukip place alongside control of immigration the idea that we should leave because this will allow us “to trade with the world”.  Having seen what  “trading with the world” in the context of globalism has brought them even within the EU — offshoring destroying huge swathes of British jobs,  iconic British companies sold to foreigners in the most cavalier fashion and  claims that free trade must  by definition include the free movement of labour  (the reduction ad absurdum of classical economic theory)  — many of the British public are unwilling to jump from the EU frying pan into the laissez faire globalist fire.  That policy will alienate many.
7. Ukip are also for shrinking the British state radically. In particular Farage has made it clear that he thinks the  NHS  should be  replaced by  an insurance system whereby treatment is free at the point of use but the state ceases to own the medical infrastructure and employ the staff. The official Ukip policy is not for this,  but as Farage is seen as Mr Ukip, most voters will think the party is for the privatisation of the National Health Service. That is electoral poison in Britain.
8. The muddled thinking of electors. Many of those who say they want an end to mass immigration also support staying in the EU. This is nonsensical because unless we come out of the EU, immigration cannot be controlled.  This reduces support for Ukip because the “we want to stay in the EU” trumps the desire for immigration control.
9. A widespread  lack of discipline within Ukip, both in terms of promoting Ukip policy and personal behaviour, from Westminster candidates , MEPs and councillors. This all too often provides opportunities for the mainstream media to represent Ukip as at best as amateurs put of their depth.

Britain needs electoral reform but the abolition of first past the post  (FPTP) is not the answer

Robert Henderson

As parties outside the British political mainstream garner more and more support the call for electoral reform will increase.. It is not simply that the coming general election will produce a House of Commons whose representation will be  radically different from the votes cast , because that has long been a feature of the British electoral system. What is different this time is the number of smaller parties such as Ukip and the Greens who will  gain significant electoral support but few MPs . The position is further complicated by the unbalanced devolution which allows non-English seat MPs to sit in the Commons and vote on English matters while English seat MPs cannot vote on the issues which have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

After the election there are likely to be renewed calls for  some form of PR to replace FPTP for Westminster elections. This would be a mistake because it would simply  be to swap one unsatisfactory electoral system for another.

There are two major problems with any form of PR:

(1) The link between the parliamentary representative  and a constituency is necessarily broken.  There are mixed systems with some members  elected for constituencies and some from a party list,  but they are very messy and do not thoroughly address the main objection to FPTP, namely, the failure to produce representatives  in proportion to the votes cast nationally.

(2)  Experience shows that  where proportional  systems exist the political classes   almost invariably transmute into conspiracies against the electorate.  This happens because majorities for one party are rare and where there is a situation of more or less permanent coalition no party can stand on a meaningful  manifesto  for the obvious reason that no government will deliver on any party’s manifesto or come close to it unless a coalition is comprised of parties whose policies are next to identical.   This means politicians can rarely  be held to account for failing to deliver.

It is also true that many  forms of  PR are complex compared with FPTP and  the  types  of PR which would be likely to be adopted  are  the  ones which would have fair degree of complexity, for example, the Standard Transferrable Vote.  Such a system would confuse a significant part of the electorate – ten percent of the UK population have IQs of 80 or less –  which could drive those people away from participating in elections.   Nor is it clear that having first and second or even more preferences invariably  produces something closer to what the electorate wants.  As I pointed out above, it is rare for any two candidates, even those of the major parties, to represent policies which  overall  are similar enough to make the second choice  a really satisfying option.

What would be better than PR?

I suggest Britain retains the  first past the post system with MPs representing the people who elect them, but moves from single-member constituencies to double-member constituencies .  This would have dissolve much of the objection to FPTP as it is now and bring additional benefits.

How would it work? Each  constituency  would have  roughly double the size of  the present constituencies.  Only one member from  each political party would be able to stand in each double constituency. The two candidates with the most votes in each constituency would be elected regardless of how far behind the leading candidate the second candidate came.  Second or additional preferences would not exist. People would  simply vote for a single  candidate as they do now.    The beneficial  effects of such a system would be:

  1. a) It would undermine the idea of safe seats. There would still be constituencies  which returned one party over and over again, but there would be a second MP to elect who would  be of a different party.
  2. b) the constituency connection of the voter and MP would be maintained .
  3. c) Electors would be able to vote for the candidate they favoured with a greater chance of getting them elected.  If the voter favoured one of the two presently major parties there would be a very strong chance that their chosen candidate would be one of the two candidates sent to the Commons.   But even electors who voted for the lesser parties would have some real expectation in many constituencies  of success for their chosen candidate,  because there are many constituencies where the second  party in a constituency is not Tory or Labour. In addition, the fact that  those coming second in an election could  be elected on a substantially smaller vote than those coming first would increase the likelihood of minor party candidates being elected. Moreover, once such a system was up and running and electors saw  how it worked the patterns of voting could and almost certainly would begin to change with more and more people being willing to risk voting for a smaller party.
  4. d) Such constituencies would allow for MPs of radically different views to represent the same set of electors. This would mean most electors would be able to have an MP to represent them whose party policies bore some resemblance to the policies the elector supported. Even if  an elector was in a constituency which had two MPs of similar views but different parties, the elector would still have a choice of two MPs to go to for help  and advice.
  5. e) Because two MPs from different parties would be elected in each constituency and there is greater opportunity for minor party MPs or even independent MPs being elected, the relationship between votes cast and MPs elected for each of the parties would be much closer than it is under the FPTP system we now have now.   However,  unlike PR the double-member constituency would not only mitigate rather than remove entirely  the disproportion between votes cast and seats obtained  under single-member constituencies.  This is worth tolerating because it is unlikely that the double-constituency system  would produce a Commons in the undesirable   state of  permanent coalition because it would retain a real possibility for single party governments.  In terms of party representation and electoral support it would be a halfway house between what we have now and the conspiracy of permanent coalition which is virtually guaranteed by any form of PR

Other changes to improve alter the balance of power

Other changes to alter the balance of power between voters and politicians to favour electors should be made:

Institute a  power to  for electors to  recall of MPs through a referendum conducted in their constituency.

Citizen initiated referenda on the Swiss model, with tight legal underpinning to ensure that politicians abide by the result  of a referendum and take   the necessary practical steps to  ensure that the will of the electors is realised .

Not perfect, but probably the best which can be done

What I propose would not entirely remove the anomalies and unfairness found in our present FPTP system, but it would remove most of the poison in the system  by giving smaller parties much greater opportunity to gain Commons seats whilst retaining the good things such as constituency representation and the simplicity of the system.

It is worth adding that a significant part of Britain’s present electoral deficiencies stem substantially from Britain’s membership of the EU (which increasingly constrains what her major political parties can offer by way of policy) and the imbalance of the present devolution settlement which leaves England out in the cold.  If Britain left the EU and switched to a true  federal system  which included an English Parliament that in itself would make the present British system function more democratically and would enhance the benefits of the double-member solution I propose.

Salmond vs Darling round 2 – The  shameless chancer versus the trembling incompetent

Robert Henderson

The second Darling vs Salmond debate on 25 August was even more depressing than the first. It might have been thought that having gone through one debate the palpable nervousness both showed the first time round  would have been largely gone.  In the event Salmond  was less nervous,  but Darling was  embarrassingly anxious.

Whoever thought Darling was a safe pair of hands for this type of work was profoundly wrong. The man is woefully ill equipped for a one-to one-debate. Throughout he frequently fell into  stuttering and even when he did not – which was primarily when he was reading from prepared notes – his delivery was leaden. When Salmond attacked him Darling  seemed peevish; when the audience derided him or asked insulting questions he was utterly at sea. (example audience comment: “I think the  fundamental difference here is that the YES campaign are fighting passionately for the future of  Scotland; Alastair Darling and others are fighting passionately for their jobs”)  Darling  spent much of the debate staring blankly ahead  like a rabbit caught in a car’s headlights while Salmond stood looking at him grinning insultingly. Darling also waved his hands for emphasis far too much, while  his habit of pointing at Salmond was a sorry mistake.

Darling also got his strategy wrong by concentrating heavily, almost obsessively,  on the point which he had laboured in the first debate,  namely, what Salmond would do if there was a vote for independence and Scotland was denied a currency union with the rest of the UK .  This is a seriously difficult question for Salmond,  but there  are only so many times a debating opponent can be prodded with the same weapon before the audience becomes restive, and restive is what they became here. The nadir of this Darling obsession came when the debate reached the section where the two politicians questioned each other. What was Darling’s first question? You’ve guessed it:  “What is your plan B for the currency?”  It was an open goal for Salmond who immediately taunted Darling with being a one-trick pony.

The way Darling asked  questions was also feeble. Not only did he keep repeating the same things, but time and again he allowed Salmond to ask him questions when he, Darling,  was supposed to be grilling Salmond. nNor did Darling seemed to have prepared himself properly,  because he was constantly running into trouble with  questions for which there was a perfectly reasonable answer, an answer which should have been anticipated.  For example, Darling was asked what his choice of the best  currency for an independent  Scotland would be if a currency union was not available. That should have been his cue to say any of the alternatives on offer was  unpalatable or that none was better than the others  and use the opportunity to run through the various weaknesses of the currencies on offer: new currency, sterlingisation and joining the Euro. Instead Darling kept on feebly saying he would not choose anything which was second best for Scotland. That of course led to calls for him to explain why he did not back a currency union which was, of course, the best bet.

Apart from  his personal deficiencies and misjudgement of which subjects to raise, Darling was at a disadvantage because he is a Scot, a Labour MP  and the last Labour Chancellor.  The fact that he is a Scot means he is vulnerable to any question which places him in a position where he if he answered honestly he might be portrayed as having no confidence in Scotland. In the first debate when Salmond asked Darling  whether Darling believed Scotland could go it alone, Darling floundered around saying he thought Scotland could but it would not be the best thing for Scotland. This allowed Salmond to keep on pressing him by asking why he had no confidence in Scotland. Here, Darling  allowed himself to be lured into flatly admitting that Scotland could use the Pound if they chose to use it because the Pound  is  a freely traded and convertible currency. This had Salmond bouncing around shrieking that Darling had said Scotland could use the Pound. Darling  desperately tried to mend the damage by pointing out that it would mean having no say on how the Pound was managed or having a central bank to act as lender of the last resort, but the damage was done with his initial admission without qualification.

The fact that Darling is a Scot also meant that he could not easily raise the question of the interests of the rest of the UK  for any suggestion that he was concerned more for the rest of the UK than Scotland  risks accusations of being a  Quisling in the service of England. Consequently,, those interests were only raised very briefly when Salmond tried the “will of the Scottish” people gambit again in an attempt to get  Darling to agree that if there is a YES vote  that would mean Salmond would have a mandate to insist on a currency union with the rest of the UK  (Go into recording of the debate at 21 minutes)   Darling  did point out that sharing the Pound with Scotland might not be the “will of the rest of the UK”.

When Salmond repeated his threat  that  Scotland’s liability for a proportionate share of the UK national debt would be repudiated  if a currency union was refused, Darling did not do the obvious, say  that  Scotland could not have their independence  legally unless the Westminster Parliament repealed the Act of Union.  No taking on a proportionate share of the debts, no repeal of the Act of Union.   Darling  could also have pointed out that the rest of the UK could block Scotland’s entry into the EU if the debt was not taken on, but failed to do so.

Being the last Labour Chancellor also allowed Salmond to attack Darling on the grounds of his economic competence because of the vast addition to the National Debt built up under his chancellorship and the massive budget deficit he left the coalition.  Being a Labour MP left him open to jibes about  being in bed with the Tories just because he was putting the case to stay within the Union.

There was also two other  built-in advantages for Salmond which had nothing to do with Darling’s shortcomings . 200 of the  audience of  220  was supposedly scientifically chosen by the polling organisation ComRes  to reflect the balance of YES, NOs and Don’t Knows in the Scottish electorate.  The remaining 20 , again supposedly chosen to reflect the balance of opinion in Scotland, were chosen by the BBC from those who had sent questions in prior to the debate.  Whether the selection was honestly and competently made to reflect the balance of opinion, judging by the audience reaction there seemed to be more YES  than NO  people in the audience.  The YES camp certainly made a great deal of noise while the NO camp was pretty quiet.

Darling’s final handicap was the fact that debate’s moderator  Glenn Campbell  behaved in a way which intentionally or not  favoured Salmond.  Arguably ten of the thirteen questions  from the audience came from committed YES voters. It is rather difficult to understand how simple chance could have produced such a bias to one side of the debate.  In addition Campbell made only half-hearted attempts  to stop  Salmond and Darling interrupting one another. As Salmond was the prime culprit,  this gave him advantage, because whenever he interrupted he almost invariably went into a long riff which was rarely cut short by Campbell.  When Darling interrupted it was generally to correct Salmond on a point of fact and his interruptions were generally short. Moreover,  Darling did his cause no favours by allowing himself to look visibly put out by questions which were essentially crude abuse.

Salmond’s  strategy in the second debate was straightforward: to make an emotional appeal to Scots patriotism as often as possible whilst giving as little detail  as he could get away with of what would happen if there was a YES vote.   He largely succeeded  because of Darling’s truly dreadful performance and Campbell’s ineffective moderation, although his refusal to tie down the currency question continued to cause him discomfort and he got himself into a mess when answering a question about the loss of jobs if the Trident nuclear subs and missiles were removed from the Clyde as the SNP promised.  (To the latter question Salmond claimed that the Trident Base would become the centre of Scotland’s independent defence force   and this would  make up for the loss of Trident. On being pressed for details of how that could be, he did his usual, simply claiming it was so.  )

Some important issues other than the currency and the Nuclear deterrent were raised, the oil and gas reserves (a shouting match with different figures being thrown around), the NHS  (Salmond had to admit that Scotland could not be forced to privatise the NHS because they controlled the Scottish part of it) and the entry of an independent Scotland into the EU (Salmond simply asserted that the EU would let Scotland join without being bound by the requirements of new members such as membership of the Euro).  Important issues al, but l treated in a superficial fashion.

What effect did the debate have? An ICM Poll for the Guardian shortly after the debate ended gave the debate 71% to 29% to Salmond. However, the sample was unscientific, viz: ‘ICM,  said the sample of 505 adults was not representative of the Scottish electorate at large and support for independence was “identical” before and after the debate. ‘ 

That there has been no radical shift is unsurprising because of the unsatisfactory nature of the debates which provided all too little hard information. For the onlooker,  the two debates could almost be reduced to the unwillingness  or inability of Salmond to address the currency question meaningfully  and Darling’s nervousness and general ineptitude  which showed all too bleakly  just how much modern politicians rely on the recital of set positions and are unable to think on their feet.    As  vehicles for informing the voters in the referendum they were next to worthless.

All in all, a most dismal display of the meagre quality of our politicians.

 

See also

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/alex-salmond-is-a-chancer-in-the-mould-of-paterson-and-law/

Alex Salmond’s attempt to disown the UK national debt should be a non-starter

Robert Henderson

During  February 2014 the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties all  pledged not to enter into a currency union consisting of Scotland and the rest of the UK if there is a YES to independence in the coming referendum ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10657721/Scottish-independence-Alex-Salmond-reveals-currency-Plan-B.html). In response   the SNP leader Alex Salmond  threatened that Scotland would not take  on a share of the UK national debt unless Scotland can share the Pound ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10634697/Scottish-independence-SNP-retribution-plan-over-pound-would-cripple-economy.html).

The idea that Scotland can just walk away from the UK National Debt  is a nonsense both legally and  as a matter of realpolitik.  Legally, the Union would have to be dissolved by an Act of Parliament because the Act of Union   contains no provision  for the Union to be dissolved, viz: “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain …” (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/I)

Consequently, the Act of Union would need to be repealed  formally or a further Act granting independence to Scotland passed with the Act of Union falling on the doctrine of implied repeal. Until either of those things are done there can be  no legal independence.

The passing of such legislation is entirely dependent on reaching terms. If  terms are not reached then there is no obligation of  Parliament to grant Scotland independence.  Moreover,  no Parliament can bind another. Consequently, if the  next General Election is held in 2015 ( before Scotland is  independent),  there could be no bar to a new Parliament refusing to accept any or all  of the terms agreed by the previous Parliament or of refusing to grant Scottish independence under any circumstances. Even if the previous Parliament had passed an Act granting Scotland independence on agreed terms, the incoming Parliament could repeal the legislation and nullify the independence.

A possible refusal of legal  independence is both inherent within the situation and reasonable. The idea of  holding a referendum to divide a state without agreeing  first the conditions for separation means as a matter logic  that independence is conditional on terms being agreed.  If that were  not so then Salmond could demand anything and could not be denied it because of the vote for indepenence.

That brings us to realpolitik. Its use is reasonable because  what is called international law is no law at all. That is so  because there is no supranational  agency which, as a last resort, has the power to enforce breaches of such putative law by armed force.

The realpolitik blocks to Salmond’s position are many and powerful.  For example, the  punitive measures Westminster could deploy to force Scotland to accept their share of the debt include  these:  vetoing Scotland membership of the EU, setting up border controls, denying Scots the right to work in England and  blocking the export of Scottish goods through  the rest of the UK .

Salmon has made much of Article 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement:

30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding  between them and others,  to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect.  The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit.  They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.  The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Memorandum of Understanding has no legal  standing, viz:

2. This Memorandum is a statement of political intent, and should not be interpreted as a binding agreement. It does not create legal obligations between the parties (para 2 of the introduction –  http://tinyurl.com/Devolution-Memorandum ).

Consequently, the memorandum can be ignored with impunity as far as legality is concerned. Moreover, the language  of Article 30 is woolly. There are clearly issues where the best interests of two parties cannot be served. The question of  a currency union is one of them. Its creation would grossly disadvantage the remaining UK members  and grossly benefit Scotland. The international markets would immediately downgrade the currency and the  UK’s credit rating,   both because of the uncertainty of what Scotland would do when it had control over its spending and as a result of the long shadow of the Bank of England’s standing as the lender of last resort  for Scottish banks.  Scotland would gain immensely because they would have the use of one of the most stable currencies in the world and the UK taxpayer (in reality the English taxpayer because Wales and Northern Ireland do not come close to meeting their public expenditure out of tax raised in their territories) would shoulder the risk of Scottish banks defaulting.  Conversely, the refusal of a currency union would benefit the remainder of the UK and be very damaging to Scotland.

On the question of the Pound being  a currency  which is part owned by Scotland, the position is simple. Scotland only gained access to the Pound by the Union of 1707.  The Pound Sterling before the Act of Union  was the English currency. Sterling was pressed into service as the currency of first Great Britain. Article 16 of the Act of Union applies:

That from and after the Union the Coin shall be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in England . . .( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/contents)

The Scottish Pound (worth only a few shillings Sterling in 1707) was abolished by the Act of Union. By leaving the Union Scotland  loses the legal right to the Pound Sterling.

It is worth noting in all the huffing and puffing from the SNP that in the 307 years of Union  Scotland has built up a massive debit balance between the taxes raised in  Scotland and the public money spent there.  Right from the off Scotland was given a much lighter tax burden than England through Article IX of the Act of Union, viz:

IX. THAT whenever the sum of One million nine hundred ninety seven thousand seven hundred and sixty three pounds eight shillings and four pence half penny, shall be enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain to be raised in that part of the United Kingdom now called England, on Land and other Things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there, for granting an Aid to the Crown by a Land Tax; that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, shall be charged by the same Act, with a further Sum of forty-eight thousand Pounds, free of all Charges, as the Quota of Scotland, to such Tax, and to proportionably for any greater or lesser Sum raised in England by any Tax on Land, and other Things usually charged together with the Land; and that such Quota for Scotland, in the Cases aforesaid, be raised and collected in the same Manner as the Cess now is in Scotland, but subject to such Regulations in the manner of collecting, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain. (https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/the-act-of-union-1707/)

The population of  Scotland in 1707 was about one fifth of  England and Wales estimated six million or so. Had the taxation been the same in Scotland as in England , under clause IX Scotland would have paid around £400,000 not £48,000.

There  is  also the vexed question of how to ensure Scotland services  the debt after independence., It is all too easy to see them defaulting. The only practical way would be for the UK to continue to administer all the debt with Scotland paying the money for their share to Westminster. The idea that Scotland could create a new currency and pay for it with that would be a non-starter because such a currency would have no international credibility for many years. I have addressed  this subject in depth at https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-wages-of-scottish-independence-public-debt/

Worryingly, not one Westminster politician has challenged Salmond or the SNP generally on the  claim that  Scotland could refuse to take on a share of the UK national debt.  This suggests that either that no Westminster politician  has considered the matter properly or that our political elite have already decided to sell England down the river in the event of a Yes vote by letting Scotland either have their currency union or to walk away from the UK without taking on any of the UK national debt.

SNP 2013 XMAS INDEPENDENCE NOVELTIES

Make you own currency kit

Allows you to name your currency,  design your own coins and banknotes, create coins (3D printer included) and banknotes and set up a central piggy bank.  Warning: the money will have the same value as that used in the game monopoly.  Not to be confused with real life.

IndependenceWorld

Create your own independent Scotland virtual world. The beauty of the programme is that you can make it as  improbable as you want and it will still seem plausible if you are an SNP supporter. Lose yourself in pure fantasy.

DevoMaxWorld

A computer  game in which players attempt to build  an ever more fantastical  world in which Scotland is granted wildly  improbable privileges to be paid for by England whilst Scotland remains  safe within the UK. For the less adventurous player.

Islands

A game for two people.  It is played on a magnetic board representing the British Isles. Players are called UK  and Scotland  The idea is for the player designated Scotland  to keep their  islands and their oil attached to  the Scottish mainland  while the player designated UK tries to make them break away and join the UK .

The game proceeds by the use of a special pack of cards with messages such as UK offers to patrol Orkney waters gain 10 watts and Scotland attempts to occupy the Island of Lewis lose 50 watts. The magnetism comes from electro magnets which each player must increase or decrease in power as their cards dictate.  The islands move on the board  from their current position towards the UK or remain as they are depending on the play of the cards. Trials of game  show a remarkably high incidence of the Islands and their oil ending up in UK hands.

My little Alec Salmon

Lifelike figure in the form of the SNP leader.  Fully animatronic. Will have you in fits of laughter as it struts up and down and makes ever more ridiculous claims.  Also programmed to do  impersonations  of Will Fyffe,  Harry Lauder, Andy Stewart and other Scottish favourites.

Government Independence Contract Monopoly 

Played on a board marked out with contracts offered by the UK government. Players move by the use of a dice and there is community chest with cards carrying instructions such as UK takes all defence contracts away from Scotland.  Players unsuccessfully attempt to collect 200 million pounds of English taxpayers’ money every time they pass GO or at any other time.  Warning: in trial uses of the game no contract has ever been awarded to Scotland.

Independence Sweepstake Game

Before independence  Players make their estimates of what the following will be after independence

–          The average oil revenue in the first five years of after independence

–          The number of English taxpayer  funded jobs in Scotland which will be lost

–          The cost of setting up a Scottish civil service

–          The cost of setting up Scottish defence forces

–          The size of the Scottish share of the UK national debt in 2016

–          The size of the Scottish share of the UK public service pensions provision in 2016

 

In the event of a vote for independence, the estimates are compared with the actuality after five years of independence.  If it happens, be amazed at the difference between the sweepstake figures (hilariously optimistic) and reality.

SNP Sovereign Wealth Fund Moneybox

Purely decorative. The box is designed without any money cache because none will be needed. Frightening realistic.

English Subsidy Moneybox

A perennial favourite but with a difference. The money box  remains open after independence but Scots find that the only money they will get from it will be that which they put in themselves. Hours of innocent fun watching the owner’s expression change from smug expectation to utter dismay.

Warships

A board game for two players where one tries to keep UK warship building in Scotland after independence and the other refuses to award the contracts to Scotland.

Call my SNP bluff

Three players  recite what is claimed to be SNP policy  while the other players decide which is the real SNP policy amongst the three. Warning: players  must  make sure the two false policies amongst the three are outlandishly  improbable  otherwise it will be all too easy to spot the real SNP policy.

Conversational Gaelic DVD

Learn the language of your ancestors  and find yourself part of a community of dozens of fellow speakers of our glorious tongue. Warning: due to a lack of Gaelic words for items and ideas created after 1700, speakers may find the range of conversation extremely limited.

Diplomacy

Played on a similar board to monopoly with similar rules. The idea is for players to establish  Scottish embassies in all the world’s capitals after independence.  Cry with laughter as Scotland  rents a bedsitter in Moscow and a Studio Flat in Washington.

EU Jigsaw

Giant jigsaw of the European Union. Players try to complete the jigsaw so that it includes an independent Scotland. Warning: the parts representing Scotland may not fit.

Paint your own Saltire

Paint a glorious Saltire by numbers. Suitable for SNP supporters of all ages.

Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! While the SNP lasts

The future of England

Meeting arranged by the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP)

House of Lords 20th November

Speakers

Frank Field Labour MP

Lord Maclennan (Lib Dem)

Professor Wyn Jones ( Professor of Welsh Politics, Cardiff U)

Eddie Bone CEP

There were around 100 people attending including a sprinkling of young faces which is always encouraging.  The audience was also pretty hostile to any suggestion that England should not have a Parliament  or be Balkanised with regional assemblies. This type of audience reaction has been growing   in meetings  I have attended over the past couple years which have dealt with the EU, immigration and England’s place in the Union. I would suggest it is indicative of a growing anger and desperation amongst the native population to what they rightly see as the selling out of their country one way or another. People have had enough of what in any other time would have been given its true name: treason.

Frank Field MP on the need for an English Parliament

Field began by pointing out that he had been against devolution in 1998 (when he voted against it) because he could see that it was a flawed settlement that was on offer which would inevitably lead to future conflict. The chief flaw in the settlement was the absence of England within the devolutionary plan.

To his credit Field  argued for an English Parliament despite the fact that his Party  derives great advantage from having many Scottish and Welsh MPs sitting in the Commons and, consequently, Labour would struggle to form a majority in the Commons if either the Union dissolved or it remained intact but with ever more powers being given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Indeed, even as things stand it is difficult for Labour to get a majority of English seats. His reasoning was this,  if Labour does  not embrace the cause of an English Parliament the increasing dissatisfaction felt by the English would erode Labour’s electoral base,  because sooner or later those in control of the Tory Party would recognise that it is de facto the English party and successfully appeal to the English . This would radically undermine present Party loyalties.   Because of this Field saw the only hope for Labour in the long term was for the Party to embrace the cause of an English Parliament and accept that it was desirable  for the English to be able to assert their identity.

Field rejected regional assemblies for England because it was clear the English do not want them and would divide the country with different regions competing against one another.  Instead he favoured a federal system for the four home countries with foreign policy, defence and finance  being federal matters dealt with in a federal parliament and the rest left to the four national parliaments.

I would support this structure (I would even go so far as to invite the Republic of Ireland to join) , but some further matters would need to be decided at the federal level most especially immigration policy. There would also be the problem of welfare benefits, NHS provision and educational facilities if each home country funded its expenditure from taxes it raised within its borders. If there were significant  differences in benefit levels in the four home countries,  eligibility for the benefits would  need to be decided at federal level because otherwise people would flock from the lower benefit level countries to the higher benefit level countries. Nonetheless, a federal government would deal with only a minute part of what Westminster deals with now.

Field’s explanation for the failure of the English in the past to display national identity strongly is the loss of Empire (he seemed to be unaware that the English never had any shyness about doing so at the height of Britain’s  imperial power). He argued that while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used the occasion to carve out a new national rather than imperial identity for themselves, England did not because her people went on in the imperial mindset because they could not face the loss of world importance.

Frankly, I think this is unsustainable. I was born in 1947 and I have never encountered anyone outside a political group or meeting where any lament for the loss of Empire was heard. The much more likely explanations are  that the English being the dominant nationality in the UK never felt to the need to bumptiously press their nationhood. Then came  Post War mass immigration with  the vast majority immigrants  ending up in England. The British elite who permitted the immigration  saw the danger that this could and probably would lead to English nationalism being hitched to anti-immigrant feeling and  set about ruthlessly suppressing it by the law and the support of the mainstream media.  English nationalist became shorthand for racist. But devolution has made it increasingly difficult for them to censor the subjects of England’s place in the Union and with that debate comes the wider one of  immigration.

Lord Maclennan (Lib Dem) A Constitutional Convention for England

Maclennan described himself as a man of many allegiances saying he was a Glaswegian (he speaks with an RP accent and anyone would take him  for English), a  Scot, a Briton, a European and God help us a citizen of the world.  Just in case the audience had not got where he was coming from, Maclennan added that he was very pro-EU.

He is in favour of an English Constitutional Convention being but there is a good deal of fudge in it. Maclennan says he wants it have popular input to prevent it being a body which simply hands down its ideas from on high. Rather curiously  he thinks that popular involvement means that it should not be time limited.  This lack of a time limit could be a device to allow the Convention to be manipulated by those controlling it by choosing the time most favourable to their interests for any final proposals to be made. At worst the process could even be deliberately stretched out until a government favourable to the wishes of those controlling the convention was elected. Moreover, unless the Convention was elected by the general population it is a little difficult to see how popular opinion could override the wishes of those making the final recommendations. It would not even be a question of  saying the Constitutional Convention’s recommendations should be put to a referendum, because the electors would still be unable to control what the question was and what the proposals were. Those two things would go a long way to determining the outcome of any referendum.

Maclennan raised the spectre of regional assemblies by speaking warmly about them,  something  which produced considerable dissent amongst the audience, with people shouting out their disapproval.  He tried to justify them by making a comparison between Bismarkean Germany and a UK where England had a parliament to look after her affairs. The newly unified Germany in 1870 was dominated by Prussia and Maclennan said he feared the same would happen if England had her own parliament. This was a poor analogy  because the newly unified Germany had two substantial states – Bavaria and Saxony – as well as Prussia  while the UK has only one large state, England.  Hence, England dominates the UK naturally through her vastly larger population whereas Prussia did so by her political and military standing, the Kaiser being a Prussian. Because England is naturally dominant it will always be so. It is also insulting to the English to suggest that her Parliament or government would abuse their dominant position to the disadvantage of the other home countries.

To justify regional  assemblies in a slightly less obviously  Anglophobic way, Maclennan  introduced the EU concept of subsidiary  and trotted out the EU line of “taking decisions at the level at which they could be best implanted”.

In short, Maclennan  peddled the Balkanisation of England,  just as the last Labour government had done.

Professor Wyn Jones ( Professor of Welsh Politics, Cardiff U) The data on the English

Jones is Welsh. However, that did not prevent him providing  a good deal of useful data to knock on the head the claims of the Anglophobes that England is too diverse for Parliament for the entire country to  meet the aspirations of devolution or that the English are content with the present constitutional settlement. He drew his data primarily  from two papers he had been involved with published by Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR): The dog that finally barked  (http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/8542/the-dog-that-finally-barked-england-as-an-emerging-political-community) and  England and its two Unions. (http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11003/england-and-its-two-unions-the-anatomy-of-a-nation-and-its-discontents).

Jones made these points from the research:

1. With exception of London, there are no significant differences by English region of the English attitude towards both seeing themselves as  English and their attitude towards the devolutional disadvantage England labours under.  In London the presence of large numbers of ethnic and racial minorities makes the attitudes towards devolution and how people see themselves in terms of their nationality less pronouncedly English.  However, this is simply a reflection of the attitude of ethnic and racial minorities throughout England where there is a strong tendency to describe themselves as British rather than English.

2.   The English are discontented with the constitutional settlement and are growing ever more so: the more English you feel, the more discontented you are.

3. There is a strong correlation between feeling you are English,  Euroscepticism and the desire for England to have a Parliament or independence.

4  IPPR research which offers the people being questioned a series of political policy areas to rank in order of importance finds the EU at number one and England’s devolution predicament at number two.

5. The English overwhelmingly do not want regional assemblies. Fewer than 1 in 15 are in favour.

6. In the IPPR research there was  a dead heat between those who want an English Parliament and those who want English votes for English laws.  This division would almost certainly vanish if the choice was put to a referendum and the matter discussed honestly in the mainstream media, in particular discussion of the  severe problems of definition when it comes to deciding what constitutes and English law. Moreover, once it became a matter of public debate with politicians and the media making the case for  a Parliament , the public would begin to ask why should England not have what the other home nations have?  However, I suspect that if a government simply announced English votes for English laws it would probably dampen English discontent in the short term.

7. English nation feeling is becoming politicised.

8. There is only a weak demand for English independence – 15% according to the IPPR research.

I take issue with the Professor on one major point.  Jones, claimed that what he called  political Englishness is a recent growth and this explains why there has been so little public dissent from the English following devolution.

The reasons I disagree are  very simple. First, there was no English politician let alone Party with substantial representation  in the Commons who would voice English anger at what has happened, while the mainstream media has been very reluctant to give the subject any space.  To that censorship can be added the gross intimidation offered both by the state in the form of ever greater legal restrictions on what may be said in public, the disgusting eagerness of the police to harass any attempt to provide public demonstrations of English national feeling, the complicity of the media who conduct hue and cries after anyone  deemed to be non-pc and large employers, particularly those in  the public sector,  who routinely sack or demote  people “convicted” of pc “crimes”.

If a public voice is denied and the power of the state used to intimidate people it is scarce to be wondered at that no public campaign for an English Parliament has  entered the political mainstream.

Eddie Bone CEP

Bone began by pointing out that 32 million people in the last census described themselves as English. He followed this by asserting that people were no longer demonised for being English. (I took issue with this strongly– see under questions from the audience).

Bone then turned his guns on the IPPR (and by implication Jones) for being behind the curve, of concentrating on what Englishness is rather than discussing the governance of England.

On the question of English independence, Bone said that the idea that there was little support as yet did not agree with his personal experience whilst working for the CEP. He believes it is a strong trend and getting stronger.

Bone dwelt on the dismal fact that there is not major British political party producing policy for England. Nor are there regional parts of the major party which are devoted to England, no English Tory Party , no English Labour Party as there have long been in Wales and Scotland.

For Bone an English  constitutional convention is wanted before the Scottish referendum on independence is held to both allow policy for England to be made and demonstrate to the Scots what independence would mean.

He described the Blair devolution settlement as stupid and lamented the fact that the cabinet papers relating to the cabinet meeting where the decision on devolution was agreed have not been made public despite FOI requests.

Bone derided regional assemblies as a tool for divide and rule and believed that piece of elite mischief at least was over and done with for ever.

Questions from the audience

The questions from the audience (not that many) centred around particular issues such as the recent sacrificing of warship building capacity in Plymouth in favour of Glasgow to curry favour with the Scots and considerable hostility to any suggestion that England should be Balkanised with regional assemblies. There was also a certain politically correct concern with whom can be considered  English following the mass post-war immigration.

Lord Stoddart,  who was there simply as a member of  audience, said that he had recently put down a question asking whether the government had any plans for an English parliament to which the answer had been a curt no.

The Lib Dem MP for North Cornwall Dan Rogerson raised the question of Cornish separatism claiming that the Cornish “are not English”.    Apart from the howling  impracticality  of Cornwall existing as a sovereign entity,  I would doubt whether more than 50% of the present population of Cornwall have been there for two generations, there having been a considerable influx of people from outside the county over the past 50 years. But even if every person living in Cornwall was born there it is difficult to see how they could be anything but English, the county having been effectively  part of the English state since the Norman Conquest and arguably before that time.

I managed to put two questions after a decent preamble:

1, Where is the evidence that the English are no longer being demonised for asserting their Englishness?

Against this idea I pointed out the  EDL’s  crawling adherence to multiculturalism had not saved them from a shameful level of harassment by the state most plausibly   because they had English in the movement’s title. When I described their treatment as  more suited to a police state than a democracy this brought sounds of approval from the audience but looks of disapproval from some of the speakers. I further pointed out that as far as the Labour Party is concerned, the fact that two of their current MPs, Gisella Stuart and Jack Straw (who both sit for English seats), had referred to English national feeling as being “dangerous”.

I ended that part of the preamble by saying that before the English could feel safe from the persecution by the state all laws which proscribed speech which was un-pc would need to be repealed and the police restrained from their current pathetically eager interference with any public political activity deemed to be un-pc.

2. In the absence of any major British party showing any interest in taking up the English question how will anything change?

I received no meaningful answer to either of these questions.

It is difficult to see how progress can be made while the major political parties are controlled by elites who are resolutely opposed to giving the English a voice and a focus for political action through an English Parliament. Ironically, the most likely instrument for change would be a vote for independence by the Scots.

The other event which could provide impetus is an EU IN/OUT referendum, if one is ever held. A vote to leave would toss British politics up in the air and force the British political elite, whether they want to or not, to concentrate on national rather than supranational issues.

Robert Henderson 22 11 2013

SNP 2012 XMAS Novelties

Independence Balloon

When filled with hot air the balloon floats away leaving its owner with nothing to hold onto

Comes in your clan tartan or decorated with Saltires

Hours of  innocent fun

Has a use-by date of  31 December 2013.

IndependenceWorld  

A video game which allows the player to build a fantasy world based on the SNP’s claims about Scottish independence.  Proficient players will be able to create a vibrant make-believe land in which Scotland

–          Keeps  the Pound

–          Has the Bank of England as the lender of last resort

–          Retains   the Queen as head of state

–           Lets its citizens call themselves British

–          Has automatic membership of the EU

–          Keeps UK defence contracts

–          Has citizens with free access to England to work

–          Keeps all the UK  oil and gas tax revenue

–          Does not suffer a stampede of private companies from  Scotland to England

These and many more incredible ideas can be found  in the amazing IndependenceWorld

Best suited to players with a very weak grasp of reality

Barnett Formula One  

There are four players

They draw lots to decide who shall be England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

The player drawing England has to pay for the others

The winner is the person able to put their hands deepest into English taxpayer pockets.

Magic  Independence  Sporran 

Traditional sporran but with an LED display on which a year is set

Watch the huge amounts of  English money disappear  into the sporran before your very eyes as the date setting  is turned to 2013.

When the date is changed to 2014,  the English money magically reappears leaving the sporran empty.

Educational toy of very high quality

Independence JOCK-IN-THE-BOX

Open the box and up pops a figure modelled on Alex Salmond

For many years our best selling item

The 2012 model is updated and instead of saying with the characteristic whine of the toy  DEVOMAXXXXXX or INDEPENDENNNCE  randomly as the box is opened,  the phrases BANNOCKBUUUURN 1314 or  INDEPENDENNNCE  2014  are emitted.

Warning: the repeated whining may not be to everyone’s taste.

EX-PATRIOT-JOCK-IN-A-BOX

Normally kept outside Scotland

Pops up every now and then to declare undying love of Scotland

OIL FANTASY VIDEO GAME

Players attempt to extend Scotland’s territorial waters to cover every offshore oilfield in the world

See how much of other nations’ oil you can claim

Celtic Tiger

Hilariously unrealistic soft toy  but young children will love it.

Warning: must  be kept well away from reality or it will fall apart

Independence Outer Islands Invasion Board Game  

Scenario:  it is 2014. Scotland has voted for Independence .  The Shetlands and the Orkneys have declared their  wish to remain in the UK and  laid  claim to the oil and gas fields within their waters.

The object of the game is for Scotland to invade the islands from the Scottish mainland  and hold them by force.

The game progresses by players throwing dice to move around the board.  This allows players to gather the means to invade.  But squares on the board which aid the invasion are intermingled with squares which contain instructions such as ENGLISH SUBSIDY ENDED – GO BACK TO START; ALL MILITARY EQUIPMENT REMOVED TO ENGLAND – GO BACK TO QUARTERMASTER’S STORES; ROYAL NAVY BLOCKADES SCOTLAND – GO BACK TO START.

Extremely demanding game. No one has managed to invade the Shetlands and Orkneys  during marketing exhibitions of Independence Outer Islands Invasion

Liar! Liar! Video game

The game consists of SNP politicians making statements such as “We have obtained  legal opinion which says an independent Scotland will automatically be part of the EU” and “Scotland pays  more into the UK tax pot than it takes out”.

Players have to guess which are lies and shout LIAR when they believe a lie has been told.

Warning: Players may find the game a little one-dimensional if they simply assume that if an SNP politician has his or her lips moving he or she is  lying.

Independent  Scotland Armed Forces set

Superbly crafted plastic models of the armed forces Scotland will have after independence. These consist of

–          A platoon of soldiers equipped with the latest dirks and claymores

–          A squadron of hang-gliders

–          3 trawlers and five rowing boats

Frighteningly realistic

HURRY,  HURRY, HURRY

BEFORE THE INDEPENDENCE  VOTE COLLAPSES