Category Archives: Scottish Tory

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

The House of Commons Library published a paper in November last year which was brought to my attention recently.  The report has the figures for the financial year 2016/17 of the Barnett Formula.  The Barnett Formula determines that differential spending on UK citizens depending on which of the UK countries those citizens live in. 

The summary of the House of Commons research paper shows that England has the lowest national average spent on every man, woman and child.  This was £8,898 in 2016/17.  In Northern Ireland by contrast, it was £11,042. 

If you live in the English “Regions” of the South East, East of England, East Midlands, South West or West Midlands you get less spent on you than even the average of England.  It is only in London that British Government spending is more than even one of the other Nations of the UK.  It is slightly more than Wales.  London has £10,192 for every man, woman and child, instead of the Welsh average of £10,076!

This Barnett Formula spread in payments, which advantages Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only for so-called “identifiable expenditure”, which is about 88% of the total public spending of the UK.  So the costs of the Foreign Office and of membership of the EU, and of Foreign Aid and Defence parts of the 12% of total public spending are not covered by the Barnett Formula. So also no allowance is made for the policies under which the British Government has headquartered British State agencies in Scotland and Wales, as for instance the DVLA and HMRC.  This is of course a yet further method of increasing the British State subsidy to those nations. 

It is worth pointing out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get yet a further method of subsidy at the moment through the EU.  The contributions to the EU which come out of English Taxpayers’ pockets (as that is the only part of the UK for which there is a net tax revenue) are funnelled back to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as EU payments, under the so-called “Conduit Effect”.

Some of the additional subsidy to London is not part of the Barnett Formula but is explained by the British State spending money on the security of its political class with its large expenditure on armed police to guard the State’s buildings, the provision of diversity barriers and all the other paraphernalia of running the British State. 

The other aspect of this of course is that London is now in John Cleese’s words “no longer an English city”.  The subsidy coming into London is from the predominantly English Regions to the predominantly non-English communities within London.  This is the fiscal background to the anti-English, metropolitan, inter-nationalist, multi-culturalism of the Labour Party’s predominance in London. 

Here is the House of Commons summary and also there is the link to the report itself which you can download>>>http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scot;lands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

In the last few days The Scottish Conservative Party under their multiculturalist Leader, Ruth Davidson, have been gloating again about Scotland’s “Union Dividend”.

Here is a quotation of part of their press release:-

“Scotland now raises eight per cent of UK total revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Total spending per person in Scotland for 2017/18 was £1576 per head higher than the rest of the UK, compared to £1448 per head the previous year.

Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary Murdo Fraser said:

“If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear.

“By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average. For a family of four, that’s more than £6000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

Here is the link to the original on the Scottish Conservatives’ Website>>> http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scotlands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

As a demonstration of how “Fake News” looks here is the text of the Telegraph’s article about this with its minor editing of the Scottish Conservatives’ Press Release:-

SNP urged to ditch plans for indyref2 as figures reveal Scotland’s £13 billion deficit is four times the size of the UK’s

22 AUGUST 2018 • 

Nicola Sturgeon has been urged to abandon  her threat of a second independence referendum after official figures revealed that  Scotland ran up a £13 billion deficit last year that was four times the size of the UK’s.

Official figures on the state of the country’s finances also disclosed a record “Union dividend” of nearly  £1,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

That figure is made up of public spending that was £1,576 higher per person north of the border in 2017/18, while Scotland’s public sector tax contributions were £306 less per head.

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (Gers) figures – the difference between what the country raised in taxes and what it spent – revealed a total deficit of £13.4 billion, or 7.9 per cent of GDP -down from 8.9 per cent in 2016/17. The UK’s spending deficit was just 1.9 per cent of GDP, down from 2.3 per cent.

Overall, Scotland’s public finances showed a slight improvement, thanks to North Sea revenue rising by more than £1 billion.

The First Minister claimed the figures proved Scotland was “on the right trajectory”, when considered alongside recent positive labour market statistics.

She added: “With the limited economic powers currently at our disposal, the actions we are taking to promote sustainable economic development are helping to ensure that the key economic indicators are moving in the right direction.”

However, the Scottish Conservatives said the finances of the rest of the UK were improving faster and the gap between the two was widening, with Scotland now raising eight per cent of total UK revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Murdo Fraser, Tory finance spokesman, said Ms Sturgeon needed to ditch plans for a new bid to break-up Britain or explain how she would find the billions required to file Scotland’s economic black hole in the event of independence.

He added: “If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

These figures confirm that being part of a strong United Kingdom is worth nearly £1,900 for every single person in ScotlandDavid Mundell

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear. By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1,576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average.  For a family of four, that’s more than £6,000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

CAMERON’S ENGLISH VOTES CHESS MOVE PUTS MILIBAND AND CLEGG IN EVEL CHECK

This is our press release about Cameron’s speech today:-

CAMERON’S ENGLISH VOTES CHESS MOVE PUTS MILIBAND AND CLEGG IN EVEL CHECK

David Cameron’s speech today at the Conservative Conference in Birmingham was interesting for all those concerned with the English Question. At last a section of the British Political Establishment, which for the last 15 years has been happy to see English concerns about England’s rights dismissed, came out with a proposal which partly addressed the democratic representational part of the English Question.

The English Democrats welcome David Cameron’s English repositioning. David Cameron infamously told Andrew Marr that he would not change the unfair Barnett Formula which gives over £1600 extra to the average man, woman and child in Scotland compared to those in England (or £6,600 more to the average family). He said that his attitude was because “I’m a Cameron (and) there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.”

EVEL may be a very little move which constitutionally speaking is unlikely to work very well. Significantly it only starts to answer the least important part (representation) of the English question because it does nothing about providing an English First Minister or Government for all the English only departments which are currently controlled exclusively from the British legislature at Westminster.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I welcome the fact that even a politician as hostile to English national feelings, as Dave Donald Cameron, who infamously said previously he would not even encourage English people to celebrate St George’s Day since he wanted to be the “Prime Minister of Great Britain and not just England” and who said he would “fight the little Englanders wherever he found them”. Even he has nevertheless been driven by however unworthy motives of political careerism to partially address the English Question.”

Robin, who is a senior litigation Solicitor with extensive experience of Constitutional Law, continued:- “The English Democrats are confident that, as a solution, English votes for English laws will not work for the reasons set out below in the annex to this press release, nevertheless David Cameron’s move will start a dynamic process in which we hope that the British Establishment’s united hostility to England and their attempts to break England up into “Regions” will be ultimately check-mated.”

“David Cameron is a spinner not a conviction politician and his interest in making this move is entirely as part of the political chess game within the Westminster elite.”

“David Cameron has done this not because he has any genuine conviction about the need to improve English democracy, but as a canny chess move to put Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg into political check. The legislative process will require their Parties to either come out in favour of this move which will damage their Party position in the House of Commons or to oppose it risking a significant political backlash from the 60.4% or 32 million adults in England that identified themselves in the 2011 Census as being English only and not British.”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman, 
The English Democrats

English Votes for English Laws (“EVEL”) is a Westminster focussed political gimmick not a constitutionally valid solution to the “English Question” and cannot work for the following reasons:-

1. If EVEL is introduced without legislation it would probably be merely a procedural Convention, without the force of law. It is much easier for politicians to change Conventions than to repeal Acts of Parliament.

2. EVEL does not address who governs England (The English Question) and would lead to a situation whereby a non-English Minister could propose legislation but be unable to speak or vote in support of it. The Prime Minister (“PM”) appoints Ministers for English Departments. These appointees may be, and have been, from parts of the UK that are devolved and such Ministers are thus unaccountable to those whom their policies and actions affect. Similarly a PM can, and has had, control of all English matters even though they do not affect his own constituents.

3. EVEL does not address the issue of who scrutinises and revises laws for England. Uniquely in the UK it is only English domestic law that is passed to the House of Lords, many of the members of which are not from England.

4. (As in 1964) EVEL will create problems if a government is elected without a majority in England, in any such case the UK government would find it very difficult to pass legislation on matters that only affect England and would be impelled to break the EVEL Convention.

5. EVEL will not provide a voice for England either with regard to “Reserved matters” concerning, for instance, the distribution within the UK of Treasury funds nor in international fora such as the British/Irish Council or the EU. In contrast, each of the devolved administrations has both UK Secretaries of State and also Ministers within the devolved Executives to champion the interests of their citizens in these meetings and to influence the outcomes in their own countries’ favour.

6. All Members of Parliament (“MPs”) at Westminster should be elected equally across the UK to represent their constituents in the UK Parliament. EVEL will create two classes of MPs in Westminster. However since devolution Westminster MPs do not equally represent their constituents in all matters as they should do. There are now two categories of MP with reference to devolved matters; accountable and unaccountable. Some are accountable to the electorate that voted for them in all matters and some are not, namely those that have the power to debate and vote on English matters that do not concern their constituents.

7. EVEL is an unequal and short-term fix for a long-term problem. The constitution of the United Kingdom was unbalanced by Devolution and only a rational, coherent and logically defensible Federal system can realistically be expected to halt the slide towards the dissolution of the UK.

No Murdo! Keep your nose out of English Business!

PRESS RELEASE

No Murdo!  Keep your nose out of English Business!

Murdo Fraser, the Conservatives’ “Enterprise spokesman” in the Scottish Parliament told Glasgow University on Thursday that devolution to the UK nations must be balanced with greater powers to the English regions.

He claimed it would be “straightforward” to create a federal system for the nations by devolving tax-varying powers but full UK federalism would not work “on the basis of England as a single unit”.

“It is quite possible to envisage a network of strong cities, or city regions, emerging to which powers could be devolved.”

“We can then add into the mix historic counties with a strong local identity, such as Yorkshire or Cornwall.”

“We do have areas such as the North-East or North-West, or East Midlands, which already have a coherent regional identity, and very quickly the map of England is filled up with a patchwork of local units, maybe not identical in geographic size, population or wealth, but all having an identifiable local focus.”

Federalism would also resolve the “West Lothian Question” – the right of non-English MPs to vote on purely English matters – and reform of the Lords, Mr Fraser claims.

According to the Government’s own MacKay Commission Report there is much less support for breaking England up into such “Regions” than for outright English Independence from the UK. 

Perhaps Murdo Fraser MSP is promoting this new attempt to break up England for the same reason as the Liberal Democrats, “Charlie” Kennedy told Dunfermline Lib Dems in 1999 that he supported Regionalisation for England because it was “bringing into question the idea of England itself!”

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:-  “We don’t want Scottish politicians telling the English that England should be broken up. My message to any such Scottish politicians is keep your nose out of English business.”

Robin continued:- “The sooner the UK is dissolved the quicker the Nations of the former UK can live as friendly neighbours!”

Robin also said:-  “Dissolution of the UK is why the English Democrats are supporting a ‘YES’ vote for Scotland on the 18th September.  Mr Murdo Fraser claims that “UK federalism would not work on the basis of England as a single unit”.  I say ‘so be it’!  Let’s dissolve a Union which  is in any case well past its sell by date!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Audi Alteram Partem may not be the snappiest title for an article but it is an important principle of both decent propriety and of English Law. It is a fundamental principle of the “Rules of Natural Justice”. It has its roots in Anglo-Saxon Law and it means:- “Hear the other side i.e. of the argument”

(Click here for a learned explanation >>> http://legalperspectives.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/audi-alteram-partem-natural-justice.html ).

From, at least, the Act of Union in 1707 this maxim has also meant something in Scottish Law.

I mention Audi Alteram Partem because that is exactly what hasn’t happened in the making of a politically important report:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”, by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

This is a Committee in which there is a considerable over-representation of Brit/Scots and hardly any English and is also under the Chairmanship of Baroness Jay. Her only qualification to be in the upper chamber of our legislative assembly is Labourite nepotism. In a proper democracy the Lords would be called our “Senate” and would be properly democratically elected instead of stuffed with the cronies and the dodgy donors of the Establishment parties.

Below I quote an important extract from the text of the report which has been grandiosely entitled:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”.

This is a Committee which point blank refused to hear evidence from any source that would contradict their politically motivated and pre-determined conclusions.

Baroness Jay has thus in a sense presided over a show trial of the sort that those other pillars of the Left, Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung would have been proud of. The aim in this case though wasn’t the ritual humiliation and then slaughter of opponents, but instead the destruction and dismemberment of England.

The bias of this report goes even beyond the refusal to hear the other side of the argument. It includes the attempt to belittle and dismiss any who advanced the contrary point of view. This has been done in the way that the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament have been referred to. Also His Honour Judge Ian Burns Campbell QC has been dismissed as a “retired diplomat”.

For those interested in hearing the real argument the issue is not the diversionary argument of whatever that oxymoron “International Law” may say. That is a complete red herring. What matters is the Constitution of the UK.

Once this point has been grasped it is painfully obvious that the concept of the “Rest of the UK” calmly sailing on in undisturbed constitutional waters, having quietly dropped Scotland overboard, is an utter fantasy.

If Scotland goes then it can only legally do so with the repeal of the relevant clauses of the Act of Union 1707. This means that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is dissolved and that any subsequent Union which may be cobbled together will not be the same constitutional entity that is now meant by the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

(E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E)


This scenario poses a direct challenge to the British Establishment. It will end their games of post imperial posing about “punching above our weight on the world stage” and, as the SNP have stated, means that none of the “Successor” or “New” States would need to automatically take on the vast debts of that most profligate and spendthrift entity, the British State! Cue: Exit Stage Left – panicking bankers and Eurocrats?

Here is the relevant part of the report:-

Principles governing independence

The UK as the continuator state

10. A central question about the constitutional position of the rest of the United Kingdom after a “yes” vote is whether it would continue as the same state. In other words, would the United Kingdom retain the statehood of the UK, with Scotland becoming a new breakaway state? If so, the rest of the UK would technically become the “continuator state” and Scotland the “successor state”. Alternatively, would the remaining part of the United Kingdom and Scotland become two new states?

11. A great deal flows from this question. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state, it would retain all of the public institutions of the UK. It would retain the treaty obligations and memberships of international organisations of the existing UK. For example, the rest of the UK would continue as a member of the European Union (with the various opt-outs that the UK now has), the United Nations (including the permanent seat on its Security Council) and NATO. Such memberships would automatically continue; they would not have to be applied for. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state it would significantly shape negotiations after a “yes” vote.

12. A comprehensive legal opinion by Professor James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Alan Boyle, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Edinburgh, on the status of Scotland and the rest of the UK in international law was annexed to the Scotland analysispaper on Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence. We are not aware of any serious objection to their analysis of the principles of public international law that would apply to Scottish independence.

13. The UK Government’s position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:-

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the “only … credible view”. Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the “broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state.” Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed, as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes. The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared “to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains.”

15. In her covering letter to the Scottish Government’s written evidence the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, appeared to question the proposition that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state. She described it as an “assertion made by the UK” and quoted a passage from Professors Crawford and Boyle’s advice in which they refer to the position in international law depending on arrangements made between the two governments and the position of other states. Having said that, the Scottish Government in their written evidence did not argue explicitly against the principle of the UK being the continuator state and we are not aware of them questioning it in other forums. David Torrance said the Scottish Government “have not taken an unequivocal position … They appear to cast doubt on the rest of the United Kingdom being the [continuator] state, but they have not said what they think would happen.” As so much flows from this it is incumbent on those who question whether the UK would be the continuator state to set out their analysis of what the alternative position would be.

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a “yes” vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

17. This would be the case because relevant precedents support that position; it would be consistent with the rest of the UK having the majority of the territory and population of the existing UK; and it would reflect the likely opinion of other countries. No realistic alternative case has been made.

18. The fact that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state shapes discussion on the implications of independence; this report proceeds on that basis.

Footnote
___________________________________________________________________
(11. We received written evidence to the contrary from the Campaign for an English Parliament, the English Democrats and Ian Campbell, a former diplomat.).

Click here for the whole report >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldconst/188/18802.htm

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Audi Alteram Partem may not be the snappiest title for an article but it is an important principle of both decent propriety and of English Law. It is a fundamental principle of the “Rules of Natural Justice”. It has its roots in Anglo-Saxon Law and it means:- “Hear the other side i.e. of the argument”

(Click here for a learned explanation >>> http://legalperspectives.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/audi-alteram-partem-natural-justice.html ).

From, at least, the Act of Union in 1707 this maxim has also meant something in Scottish Law.

I mention Audi Alteram Partem because that is exactly what hasn’t happened in the making of a politically important report:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”, by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

This is a Committee in which there is a considerable over-representation of Brit/Scots and hardly any English and is also under the Chairmanship of Baroness Jay. Her only qualification to be in the upper chamber of our legislative assembly is Labourite nepotism. In a proper democracy the Lords would be called our “Senate” and would be properly democratically elected instead of stuffed with the cronies and the dodgy donors of the Establishment parties.

Below I quote an important extract from the text of the report which has been grandiosely entitled:- “Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum”.

This is a Committee which point blank refused to hear evidence from any source that would contradict their politically motivated and pre-determined conclusions.

Baroness Jay has thus in a sense presided over a show trial of the sort that those other pillars of the Left, Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung would have been proud of. The aim in this case though wasn’t the ritual humiliation and then slaughter of opponents, but instead the destruction and dismemberment of England.

The bias of this report goes even beyond the refusal to hear the other side of the argument. It includes the attempt to belittle and dismiss any who advanced the contrary point of view. This has been done in the way that the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament have been referred to. Also His Honour Judge Ian Burns Campbell QC has been dismissed as a “retired diplomat”.

For those interested in hearing the real argument the issue is not the diversionary argument of whatever that oxymoron “International Law” may say. That is a complete red herring. What matters is the Constitution of the UK.

Once this point has been grasped it is painfully obvious that the concept of the “Rest of the UK” calmly sailing on in undisturbed constitutional waters, having quietly dropped Scotland overboard, is an utter fantasy.

If Scotland goes then it can only legally do so with the repeal of the relevant clauses of the Act of Union 1707. This means that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is dissolved and that any subsequent Union which may be cobbled together will not be the same constitutional entity that is now meant by the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

(E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E)


This scenario poses a direct challenge to the British Establishment. It will end their games of post imperial posing about “punching above our weight on the world stage” and, as the SNP have stated, means that none of the “Successor” or “New” States would need to automatically take on the vast debts of that most profligate and spendthrift entity, the British State! Cue: Exit Stage Left – panicking bankers and Eurocrats?

Here is the relevant part of the report:-

Principles governing independence

The UK as the continuator state

10. A central question about the constitutional position of the rest of the United Kingdom after a “yes” vote is whether it would continue as the same state. In other words, would the United Kingdom retain the statehood of the UK, with Scotland becoming a new breakaway state? If so, the rest of the UK would technically become the “continuator state” and Scotland the “successor state”. Alternatively, would the remaining part of the United Kingdom and Scotland become two new states?

11. A great deal flows from this question. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state, it would retain all of the public institutions of the UK. It would retain the treaty obligations and memberships of international organisations of the existing UK. For example, the rest of the UK would continue as a member of the European Union (with the various opt-outs that the UK now has), the United Nations (including the permanent seat on its Security Council) and NATO. Such memberships would automatically continue; they would not have to be applied for. Were the rest of the UK to be the continuator state it would significantly shape negotiations after a “yes” vote.

12. A comprehensive legal opinion by Professor James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Alan Boyle, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Edinburgh, on the status of Scotland and the rest of the UK in international law was annexed to the Scotland analysispaper on Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence. We are not aware of any serious objection to their analysis of the principles of public international law that would apply to Scottish independence.

13. The UK Government’s position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:-

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the “only … credible view”. Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the “broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state.” Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed, as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes. The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared “to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains.”

15. In her covering letter to the Scottish Government’s written evidence the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, appeared to question the proposition that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state. She described it as an “assertion made by the UK” and quoted a passage from Professors Crawford and Boyle’s advice in which they refer to the position in international law depending on arrangements made between the two governments and the position of other states. Having said that, the Scottish Government in their written evidence did not argue explicitly against the principle of the UK being the continuator state and we are not aware of them questioning it in other forums. David Torrance said the Scottish Government “have not taken an unequivocal position … They appear to cast doubt on the rest of the United Kingdom being the [continuator] state, but they have not said what they think would happen.” As so much flows from this it is incumbent on those who question whether the UK would be the continuator state to set out their analysis of what the alternative position would be.

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a “yes” vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

17. This would be the case because relevant precedents support that position; it would be consistent with the rest of the UK having the majority of the territory and population of the existing UK; and it would reflect the likely opinion of other countries. No realistic alternative case has been made.

18. The fact that the rest of the UK would be the continuator state shapes discussion on the implications of independence; this report proceeds on that basis.

Footnote
___________________________________________________________________
(11. We received written evidence to the contrary from the Campaign for an English Parliament, the English Democrats and Ian Campbell, a former diplomat.).

Click here for the whole report >>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldconst/188/18802.htm

Scottish Tory Splitter Ends Delusions Of Unity – Will It Mark The Dawn of a Federal UK?

For years, the British Establishment parties in Scotland have operated as minor branches of their larger, UK/Unionist British head offices. Despite Scotland now having a powerful and evermore independent legislature, the Unionist parties have in Scotland remained subordinate to their organisational masters in London, pretending to be different but forever tethered to Westminster. Last May the SNP took effective advantage of this situation, winning an historic majority on the back of a campaign that they are the only truly Scottish party.

Murdo Fraser MSP, the favourite to be the next leader of the Scottish Tories, is attempting to change all that, claiming:

“If I am elected as leader of the party, I will turn it into a new and stronger party for Scotland. A new party. A winning party with new supporters from all walks of life. A new belief in devolution. A new approach to policy-making. A new name. But, most importantly, a new positive message about the benefits of staying in and strengthening our United Kingdom. A new party. A new unionism. A new dawn.”

There have been some rumblings of support from some Tories in Westminster, and the general belief is that Mr Fraser’s democratic mandate (should he win) will allow him to manage the party as he sees fit.
On the other hand some Westminster Tories have reacted with knee jerk anger to any threat to their dominance within their Party but fears that the move will encourage independence are perhaps misplaced. The centre right is pro-unionist and will resist the move to destroy the current constitutional status quo. However, the move could do more to advance the march of federalism than any other event since devolution, even perhaps more than the recent electoral successes of the SNP.

Some commentators have likened the move to situation in Germany where the Bavarian CSU operates as an ally of the CDU a Party which covers the rest of Germany. This argument has its merits, but also its limitations. Germany has 16 states, meaning the CDU contests and represents the vast majority of Germany. Without Scotland, the rump of the Tory Party will contest only England and Wales.

Although Wales does not have a politically effective Nationalist party, the Scottish Tory split could lead to demands for a dedicated English Conservative Party organisation and, in the light of the unresolved West Lothian question and the Scottish Parliament’s increasing power, confidence and independence, the calls for an English Parliament will surely grow as will the demand for a truly English Nationalist Party like the English Democrats.

This sequence of events depends on the success of the new party. If the new Scottish Tories do manage to reinvent themselves, regain the trust of the electorate and create a united centre-right party to challenge the diverse and dominant left in the country, Labour and the Liberal Democrats may feel inclined, even obliged, to follow their lead and create separate entities to competitively contest elections. With this, a federal UK becomes the inevitable medium term consequence.

To suggest that the rebranding and reforming of even one of the main Establishment parties could lead to a historic change in the UK itself is an ambitious suggestion and one that relies on a fair degree of speculation. However, it will undoubtedly put the Conservatives (or whatever they become) on an equal footing with the SNP as a dedicated party for Scotland and demonstrates the ever-diverging political trends between Scotland the rest of the UK.

It is interesting to note that the “Blue Labour” movement has also been talking about becoming more pro-English and UKIP, the leading traditional British Nationalist party, is also considering adopting some measures to address England’s democratic deficit –both moves are considered only in order to try to preserve an increasingly constitutionally precarious “United” Kingdom and for tactical electoral advantage.