Category Archives: Scottish Nationalists

MY SPEECH FOR AFTER THE COUNT TONIGHT

MY SPEECH FOR AFTER THE COUNT TONIGHT

Ladies & Gentlemen

I would also like to thank the Returning Officer and all his/her helpers who have worked on this election and also those voters who have voted for me and for the English Democrats.

I have enjoyed standing in this election and playing my part in flying the flag for England and for English nationalism.

I am going to be very interested in seeing what now happens. If, as the polls suggested, Labour is able to form a minority government only with the assistance of the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and possibly Sinn Fein and other Irish nationalists, then I fully expect many voters who voted for other parties to wish that they had voted for the English Democrats to be a voice for England. 

That voice will be sorely missed because for the next 5 years we may have a government which is more anti-English than any government that England has had since the Norman Conquest.

As I speak poor England is now being delivered into the hands of our Nation’s enemies.

I hope that the experience of the next 5 years will ensure that never again will anyone who cares for England vote for any party which hasn’t got “Putting England First” at its very heart!

Our General Election Press Launch – Even Sky News came too!




Our General Election Press Launch – Even Sky News came too!

As I mentioned in my previous Blog item, over the years we have tried hard to get our press launch covered. 

This has always previously been a struggle but this year we did get some interest, both from ITV and, in particular, from Sky, who actually sent a reporter.

We were briefly on the Sky News and also a more detailed report was done for Sky’s website. Here is a link to the article, click here >>> Coalition With Nationalists ‘Would Be Treason’

The text is slightly off what I said because I wasn’t accusing Scottish and Welsh Nationalists of being traitors to their countries, but my point was focussed more on Ed Miliband and the Labour leadership.

But leaving that aside, I think the Sky reporter has done a good job.

What do you think?

Scottish Nationalists to make play for Berwick


Scottish Nationalists to make play for Berwick


The English town of Berwick on Tweed looks set to be a battle between three contending national identities in the General Election. The Scottish Nationalists have indicated that they are considering putting up a candidate for Berwick on Tweed, calling for Berwick on Tweed to “come back” to Scotland. The British Establishment parties will, of course, be putting up candidates to take the seat from the Liberal Democrats on the retirement of their sitting MP, Alan Beith. The English Democrats will also be standing in Berwick on Tweed to campaign to keep Berwick part of England.

Berwick on Tweed was originally an Anglo-Saxon foundation back in the 6th Century as part of the Kingdom of Northumbria, before the Scots even arrived in Scotland from Ireland.

In the late Dark Ages/early Medieval period Berwick on Tweed did change hands several times with the fluctuations of the fortunes of Northumbria, but by English Unity Day on the 12th July 927, Berwick on Tweed was firmly part of England, only to be sold to the Scottish King by Richard I (Coeur de Lion), as part of his fund-raising efforts to raise money to go on crusade. (This is the King who is purported to have said that he would sell London if he could find a buyer).

The next legal change occurred following the Scottish opportunist invasion to loot, rape and burn their way across Northern England when the young Edward III overthrew his mother’s lover, Mortimer, thinking that a teenage king would be unable to respond effectively. How wrong they were was proved at the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333, in which the Scots suffered a catastrophic defeat. As part of the peace terms they agreed to hand back the legal title to Berwick on Tweed.

Since that time Scottish armies have occupied Berwick from time to time but never with a legal title. The last occasion being in1482, a little before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas!

It will therefore amuse any impartial observer that Scottish Nationalists would talk about getting Berwick back, when the last time they had any proper title to it was 1333 and the last time they even occupied it was before Europeans had even discovered that there was the continent of the Americas and well before most of the current Nation States of Europe were even thought of!

The strategic importance of Berwick however lies in the effect of North Sea oil and fishing. If the UK does break up and Scotland and England become separate Nation States, then control of Berwick will be of great importance. If Berwick is English, to work out the sea boundary between England and Scotland you will follow the average of the national land boundary, which broadly speaking would mean placing a ruler on Carlisle and Berwick and drawing 200 miles out to sea – all south of that line being English. If you do the exercise you will see that that means that a substantial proportion of North Sea oil and fishing is not Scottish at all, but is English. In fact it goes further than that because the usual international legal convention on deciding the sea boundary is also to follow the geological features which probably places more than half of North Sea oil in English waters and also places nearly all the gas in English waters.

Even ignoring such a strategic point about the position of Berwick, as an English nationalist I would not be willing to see Berwick become part of Scotland without the opportunity to campaign hard to persuade the people of Berwick on Tweed and the whole constituency to remain true to England. Let them sing Gilbert & Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore, Boatswain that “in spite of all temptation to belong to other nations, I remain an Englishman!
 
Below is the article from the Scottish newspaper, The Herald, about the SNPs intentions. What do you think? 

We shall be calling for funds so that we can make as bigger splash in campaigning in Berwick as possible! Will you help?

Here is the article:-

SNP could stand for Berwick seat in UK elections


The SNP could stand for Berwick in the UK general elections this May, in a bold but very smart move to gain a spot in the UK-wide television debates.

Christine Grahame, MSP for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, has offered to stand for the English seat. She says broadcasters have no plans to include the SNP leadership in any UK-wide debates to be screened in the run-up to May due to their presence being confined to Scotland, but a move to stand in an English seat would automatically provide the party with an ‘across the UK-presence’.

Ms Grahame’s proposal would mean that the SNP could claim to be standing right across the UK because it would have candidates in England as well as Scotland. Ms Grahame believes that would justify a place on the national stage for new SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon when it comes to pre-election leader debates.

Berwick has long been a divisive territory for the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in a historical sense, however more recently, the people of Berwick have become increasingly envious of SNP policies just a few minutes drive over the border including free prescriptions, higher education and travel for the elderly.

Any contest from the SNP for the seat would be seen as a direct attack on the UK establishment and could confidently succeed as many residents of the English constituency could use an SNP vote to voice their discontent with the UK government and may well see it as an avenue from which to introduce fairer local policies and raise issues which matter most to them, being just across the border from Scotland.

Ms Grahame said: “I have offered to stand in Berwick as a candidate so we can get equal coverage on the television because we fight throughout the UK.

“I can still keep my seat in the Scottish Parliament but then they would have to say we stand all over the UK, we should have all our leaders in these debates.”

And this isn’t the first time English-born Ms Grahame has set her sights on Berwick, where she took part in the independence referendum debate in September.

Speaking at the BBC’s pre Scottish referendum ‘Scotland and Us’ debate at Berwick’s Maltings Theatre, she told the audience that Scotland breaking away from England would be good for the area and would stimulate the case for devolution of powers to the north of England.

And in the run up to the 2008 general election she lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament calling for the town to “return to the fold”.

Standing in bordering English constituencies would certainly frighten the Westminster political elite and would give the SNP a greater chance at strengthening their presence in the UK Parliament.

Border constituencies may be more likely to vote for the SNP as an alternative to the mainstream parties in England, especially with the prospect of a strong SNP contingent at Westminster which would wield greater power and sway over issues affecting those constituencies.”


Click here for the original >>>
http://scottishstatesman.com/snp-could-stand-for-berwick-seat-in-uk-elections/

PRESS RELEASE – SCOTLAND FAILS THE INDEPENDENCE TEST!

Here is our PRESS RELEASE –  
SCOTLAND FAILS THE INDEPENDENCE TEST!

The English Democrats commiserate with the Yes campaign and the Scottish National Party and Alex Salmond on the disappointing result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.  They should however be congratulated on an excellent campaign against all the lies and propaganda and dirty tricks put up by the British Political and Media Establishment. 

The abiding memory for the People of England of the Scottish Referendum will be the sight of senior “British” politicians demonstrating again and again and again that they have no interest in properly representing English interests, England or the English Nation and every intention of selling us down the river. 

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “It is now England’s turn to be heard and the English Democrats have every confidence that the People of England will reject the shabby deal concocted by the Unionist Westminster elite in a conspiracy against English interests.  This was rushed through for the purpose of subverting the democratic process in the Yes/No Scottish Referendum after the same gang had refused to allow the Devo-max option to actually be put on the ballot paper.   The Westminster elite has shown itself to be utterly self-interested, dishonest, undemocratic and unfit to run our country. So far as England is concerned the English Democrats call upon all those who care about England to block the implementation of “Devo-max” until exactly the same is offered for the whole of England as a national unit.”

Robin continued:- “The great danger now facing England is an equivalent, undemocratic, dishonest conspiracy by the Westminster elite to try to ram through, without any democratic mandate, their plans to break England up.  Any such attempt is totally unacceptable and is nothing short of an act of war against England.  It should be met with a response that is appropriate for an act of war!”

Have you seen the following link asking if I am the English Alex Salmond?  >>>? BBC News English Democrats Robin Tilbrook on party conference – YouTube

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Party Tel: 0207 242 1066

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org

Chairman’s FB

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002. 

The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we support a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ VERDICT ON 2ND SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE DEBATE – Darling defeated!

yes Darling but not for England!

Our Press release on the debate which is on iplayer here >>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04g1w4s
What did you think?

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ VERDICT ON 2ND SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE DEBATE – Darling defeated!


Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “Thanks to the BBC, watching this  debate was very informative for any Englishman. Seeing Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond debating was often somewhat like watching two Scotsmen arguing about how best to pick English Taxpayers’ pockets!” The opportunity to see this debate is bound to pour further fuel on English resentment, particularly with Alistair Darling’s cavalier and increasingly desperate (and stuttering) promises to filtch yet more money from English taxpayers in order to bribe Scots to vote NO!”

Robin also said:- “Alex Salmond clearly won this debate for his vision of “Team Scotland” but I expect the effect on many English viewers will be to make even more English people determined to end the unfair Barnett Formula if the Scots vote NO. This would then reduce the British Government spending on the average Scottish family by over £6,000 per year!”

“Even in mid April, when the recent IPPR research was done, 56% of the English already agreed with the statement:- “Levels of public spending in Scotland should be reduced to the levels in the rest of the UK” (click here to see the evidence >>> The English favour a hard line with Scotland – whatever the result of the Independence Referendum – Wales Governance Centre – http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/2014/08/20/the-english-favour-a-hard-line-with-scotland-whatever-the-result-of-the-independence-referendum/). Now that figure will be even higher and English people will be even more resolved!”

Robin continued:- “At least however the BBC actually broadcast this debate outside of Scotland unlike the ITV debate which was only broadcast in Scotland! The BBC and Glenn Campbell also did a much better job of hosting and chairing the debate”

Finally Robin stressed:- “The outright abolition of the unfair Barnett Formula is now a near certainty if Scots vote “No”. Scotland’s voters will therefore shortly be faced with a stark choice between that certainty of a reduction in their living standards or with the uncertainties of being their own masters in an independent country. As an Englishman I am very jealous of their opportunity. If I was faced with that choice I would choose freedom any day! I say that the future of England should also be in the hands of the English Nation”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

English excluded from the debate and from even watching it – Alex Salmond v Alistair Darling Scottish Independence Debate

English excluded from the debate and from even watching it – Alex Salmond v Alistair Darling Scottish Independence Debate


Yesterday I issued this Press Release. What do you think?

Tonight in Glasgow is the televised debate between Alex Salmond v Alistair Darling on Scottish Independence, yet (we) in England will not be able to watch the debate as it is only being shown in Scotland.

This is an affront to democracy as the English will not be able to make their own decision on who wins the independence TV debate. Instead we will have to listen to news coverage telling us what the results are by the “British” media.

Who could forget that after the Nick Clegg v Nigel Farage TV debate the British media immediately claimed that Nick Clegg had won, when it turned out that the UK public overwhelmingly thought that Nigel Farage had comprehensively won the debate?

Scottish Independence will impact on all the nations and on all the peoples living within the UK as it will mean the legal dissolution of the UK.

E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E

Where E = “Kingdom of England”
S = “Kingdom of Scotland”

GB = “United Kingdom of Great Britain”

Exclusion from democratic debate is worrying but it is worse than that, as not only have English, Welsh and Northern Irish voices been excluded from this debate, we have now been excluded from being even allowed to watch the debate as well.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “England’s Unionist Masters don’t want England to have a voice on Independence and don’t want us to see what offers of special deals they are making at our expense to keep Scotland at least in appearance within the UK regardless of how much that costs English taxpayers and how much it is against the interests of the English Nation!”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

BritScot Twitters:- "Heard you on Essex Radio saying it is unfair Scots get free scripts whilst the English don’t. This is devolution."

I was interviewed on Radio Essex on the 30th May, the day of the launch of the Scottish Independence period.  A twitter conversation came out of that which I think is of some interest with a BritScot, named Scott (sic!) Wardrope.  

The conversation went as follows:-
 
Scott:- “Heard you on Essex Radio saying it is unfair Scots get free scripts whilst the English don’t.  This is devolution.”

Scott:- “The English could have free scripts/university, but choose not to, whilst the Scots do.  What is unfair about that?”

Me:-  “Both paid for by English taxpayers and not offered to us by our British masters.”

Scott:-  “I think Scottish taxpayers also make a contribution.  In fairness the Scots also have to pay for Trident and illegal wars.”

Me:-  “House of Lords report says England subsidises Scotland to the tune of £32 billion per year.”

Scott:-  “Politicians bend the facts to suit their views though.  We will only know for sure if we actually get our independence.”

Me :- “Are you Scottish and a yes voter?”

Scott:-  “I am Scottish, but live in Essex, so I cannot vote on the indyref.”

Me:-  “Well then you are just as disadvantaged as any Englishman by the current arrangements!”

Scott:- “Indeed!  I am reduced to lobbying friends and family from over the border.”

Me:- “If they vote yes then you will have to choose whether you are Scottish or English.  Which would it be?”

Scott:-  “Scottish.  I suspect a few ex-pats Scots will be returning home after the yes votes.  Sadly it seems indy Scotland will join the EU.”

Me:-  “Interesting!  Your, and their, ultimate loyalty to Scotland and not England is a further strong argument for English independence!”

Scott:-  “I suppose it is.  Scots have stronger nationalism than the English though.  Nationalism is a dirty word down south.”
 
The twitter conversation was then joined by Scott Laing.

Laing said :- “That is a false choice – option is not “English” but “British”.  Cannot choose to be English surely?”

Me to both:- “You will not be able to be British if Scotland goes!  E + S = GB therefore GB – S + E”.

Me:- “As historian AJP Taylor pointed out that is because Scots in England have been pushing Britishness for some 70 years now.”

Laing:-  “And what about W and NI?  Even better together folk such as myself would choose S if between S and E.”

Scott:-  “The Left have equated English nationalism with racism and other nasty isms.”

Scott:-  “Britishness is a dying concept.  Unless WW3 breaks out, Britishness will bite the dust.”

Scott:-  “England won’t be able to drop NI Prods there feel more British than most English.”

Me to both:-  “Wales was incorporated into the KGD of England in 1536 the NI remnant of the 1801 Union lapses with the dissolution of GB.”

Me to both:-  “Not a question of feelings but of constitutional law.”

Scott:-  “A YES vote will create much uncertainty in NI then. There is a lot of union flags there that need tweaking.”

 

ENGLAND says YES to Scottish Independence!

ENGLAND says YES to Scottish Independence!

Here is the text of our press release:-

The 30th May saw the start of the Scottish Referendum in earnest.

The English Democrats, England’s only nationalist Party, supports the YES campaign for Scotland to vote for Independence.

Constitutionally – A YES vote will lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain this will therefore lead to Independence for England – Good news for English Nationalists!

EU – Both Scotland and England will be New or “Successor” states in International Law and so, as Senor Barroso recently confirmed, they will both be automatically outside the EU – Good news for Eurosceptics!

Barnett Formula – The House of Lords reported in 2009 that the subsidy from English Taxpayers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was £49 billion per year. This will cease with the Dissolution of the UK – Good news for English Taxpayers!

UK Debt – The British Government is one of the most profligate and spendthrift institutions on earth and has run up debts of well over £1 trillion and is still increasing even that stupendous figure by over £100 billion a year in “deficit”. This £1 billion per week (52 billion a year) is now bleeding England white. Dissolution of the UK means that financially our New Nation States will not be required to take on the British Government’s debts – Good news for our grandchildren!

UN Security Council – The Dissolution of the UK will mean that our New Nation States will not automatically have the British position on the UN Security Council and so our politicians won’t be so easily diverted from doing their duty to look after the interests of our Nation and People by the glittering prospects of strutting about “punching above our weight on the world stage” – which has cost us over £29 billion in our strategic failures in Iran and Afghanistan. Good news for all who long for us to mind our own business and to look after England’s interests! (the real “Little Englanders”?)

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Scottish Independence offers a terrific opportunity not only for Scotland but also for England to Reboot or Restore good sense and good order for our Nation and to wipe away the terrible effects of years of British Government incompetence, irresponsibility and profligacy!”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

UK to be Python-esque “dead parrot” after Scottish Independence?


The British Establishment’s increasingly desperate support for the idea of the “rest of the UK” (rUK) reminds me of (for the middle aged amongst us) the “dead parrot” sketch from Monty Python. I am reminded of the shop-keeper’s self-interested and ludicrous attempts to persuade his customer that the parrot is healthier than it seems! Here is the ‘Python clip >>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Jim Callaghan’s daughter, Baroness Jay of Paddington. It has called for evidence for an Inquiry into the constitutional implications for the remainder of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote on the 18th September.

The assumptions for the questions are that there will be a constitutional entity called the rUK. My view could be expressed as a mathematical formula:-

E + S = GB   therefore   GB – S = E 

(Where E = Kingdom of England, S = Kingdom of Scotland, GB = United Kingdom of Great Britain).

Below are my submissions to the Committee. What do you think?

Scottish Independence: Constitutional implications for the rest of the UK

I am the Chairman of the English Democrats, which is the only English party that is interested in such constitutional implications. We are of course interested in the constitutional implications for England. As English nationalists we call for English Independence.

The first point to make crystal clear in the event that Scotland goes independent, and I make this point, not only as the Chairman of the English Democrats, but also as a lawyer and practicing solicitor, that there is no automatically persisting entity known as “the rest of the UK”. This point rests on basic constitutional legal principles and derives from the nature and wording of the Act of Union in 1707. The relevant articles of which are stated as follows:-

“ARTICLE 1

THAT THE TWO Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;

ARTICLE III

That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled, The Parliament of Great Britain.”

It therefore follows, as a matter of trite law, that in the event of Scotland becoming independent this must involve the repeal of the Act of Union 1707. This automatically means that the then new constitutional entity that was created by the Act of Union, namely the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”, will be dissolved. This leads to the automatic dissolution of the Union with Northern Ireland.

The Union with Northern Ireland is the residue deriving from early 20th Century Southern Irish independence of a Union which was created by the Act of Union of 1801 between the Kingdom of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Obviously therefore the Union so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, is with the United Kingdom of Great “Britain”. With the dissolution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” there will be no automatically persisting Union with any then existing constitutional entity.

The position of Wales is different because Wales was fully incorporated into the “Kingdom of England” by the 1536 union legislation. That is why of course the Act of Union 1707 does not mention Wales because Wales is then encompassed within the term the “Kingdom of England”.

It follows that without new constitutional legislation the independence of Scotland leads to the dissolution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” and of Great Britain’s union with Northern Ireland. It will thus give rise to the re-emergent “Kingdom of Scotland”, the re-emergent “Kingdom of England” and the “Province of Northern Ireland” with no current Union between England or Scotland (or the Republic of Ireland).

It is worth considering the above points carefully because the consequence of Scotland becoming independent isn’t just that Scotland technically would be classified as a new state, under the emerging body of what, for want of a better term, is called “international law”, but also that the Kingdom of England and the Province of Northern Ireland will also all be now States.

The Committee has asked for answers to specific questions.

1. Negotiations – Is the timetable of independence by March 2016 realistic?

Yes, I would have thought it was. It will impose an obligation on negotiators to get on with it promptly.

2. Who will negotiate for the remainder of the UK? To whom would they be accountable?

You will appreciate from my introductory points above, about the nature of the constitutional implications of Scottish independence, that there would not automatically be a single entity which is the remainder of the UK.

It is certainly not appropriate for anyone to purport to negotiate on behalf of England if not expressly and avowedly and legitimately mandated to do so. This will particularly apply to those British politicians who have expressly stated either their hostility to the English nation and/or their Scottish origins, such as David Cameron or William Hague, let alone anyone who is actually of Scottish origin, such as Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling.

The English negotiators should be accountable to the English Nation. It is essential that an English parliament and government be reconstructed quickly in the event of Scotland voting for independence so that there are proper lines of democratic accountability and legitimacy within England.

3. What impact would the timing of the UK general election in May 2015 have on negotiation?

It will clearly have a destabilising effect on the negotiations as it may well result in the replacement of the original team with a different team of negotiators and with a different government involved in the negotiations.

4. What happens if the two negotiating teams cannot reach agreement on an issue?

The answer to this question will, of course will depend on the issue. For instance if the issue was where the boundary between English North Sea oil and Scottish North Sea oil lies, then that could be adjudicated upon by the International Court at the Hague. If it was something that was within the giving of one of the parties but requested by the other, such as a role in the formulation of policy at the Bank of England that will not be capable of adjudication. Clearly the English team could simply refuse and the other team would not be able to insist upon it. If in fact on that item there is such a refusal then I suspect the Scottish negotiators will take the advice of the highly respected international law authority, Professor David Scheffer of the Centre for International Human Rights in Chicago and decline to accept any share of the UK’s debts.

5. Assets and liabilities and shared services. What legal principles should apply to negotiations on the apportion of assets and liabilities that are currently UK-wide?

Since all the participants in negotiations will be acting on behalf of potentially “new States” the negotiations are inevitably going to be without hard and fast rules and will be based on give and take. In principle all parties could walk away from the liabilities of the “UK”. So far as assets are concerned, that will either rest on satisfactory negotiations between the parties or will be based on who has physical possession.

6. What are the constitutional implications of maintaining services shared between Scotland and the rest of the UK (for example, the Bank of England and those services listed on page 364 of the Scottish Governments’ White Paper)?

Answer 5 above answers this question.

7. Parliament. What would the position of MPs for Scottish constituencies be from May 2015 to March 2016?

Until the dissolution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” and Northern Ireland they would of course be members of the Union Parliament. Upon dissolution the Union Parliament itself will have to be reconfigured in accordance with the new constitutional situation. The same will apply to peers of the Union Parliament.

8. What impact would independence have on the House of Commons if MPs for Scottish constituencies left it in March 2016?

Clearly the balance of the parties would be shifted, but the point remains that the House of Commons constitutional position will be altered as Parliament will no longer be the Parliament of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” but rather only of the Kingdom of England which will also exclude Northern Irish MPs.

9. What impact would independence have on the House of Lords? 

The House of Lords is of course currently one of the two Chambers of the Parliament of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” and Northern Ireland. With the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain the membership of the House of Lords will be dramatically affected as it will only be appropriate for English peers to sit in the English Upper Chamber. The English Democrats position is that all members of the English Upper Chamber should be democratically elected by the people of England.

10. What legislation (or other measures) would the Westminster have to pass in order for Scotland to become independent?

The Act of Union of 1707 would have to be repealed.

Scottish Minister sells out England for £££billions!

Scottish Minister sells out England for £££billions!

The Right “Honourable” Danny Alexander, the Scottish Lib Dem, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in this Coalition Government recently announced that he was binding the British Government to underwrite all of Scotland’s share of the British national debt even if Scotland votes to go independent!

This announcement was greeted by scarsely a squeak of protest from any part of the British Establishment either political, administrative, financial, industrial or media!

This is despite the fact that there is only one part of the United Kingdom for which there are net tax revenues. That part is England and this means that in effect Mr Alexander intends to lump the entirety of the vast debts of the United Kingdom upon the shoulders of English taxpayers!

The only way out for England is of course Independence, to try to ensure that the Government’s much trumpeted term “Rest of the UK” does not include us!

Here is an article about Mr Alexander’s shameless plundering of English pockets to pay to protect the interests of his own countrymen!

What do you think?

England to take on ALL of Scotland’s debts if voters back independence

ByMatt Chorley

The UK will continue to honour Scotland’s huge debts even if it votes for independence, the Treasury said yesterday.

In a surprise intervention, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander said the move was essential to prevent investors being spooked by the independence referendum and charging a ‘separation surcharge’ for lending to the UK.

It follows concerns over debt being transferred to a newly-independent country with no credit history. The Treasury denied that London was letting Scotland ‘off the hook’.

First Minister Alex Salmond has insisted he will only take on a share of the UK’s debt if an independent Scotland can keep the pound.

It said an independent Scotland would inherit a ‘fair and proportionate’ share of the UK’s £1.4trillion debt and would still be required to pay the money back.

But Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond hailed the move as a victory, which he said made a mockery of the Government’s claims that an independent Scotland would be barred from keeping the pound.

Some Tories questioned whether the deal was fair on English voters. MP Philip Davies warned it would fuel resentment about ‘preferential’ treatment for the Scots.

A spokesman insisted the move was designed to provide reassurance to investors looking to buy gilts, or government debt, this year.

It was feared that global investors would turn their back on the UK if there was uncertainty about who would take responsibility for the repaying the debt if Scotland became an independent country.

The Treasury paper published today said: ‘In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government.

Treasury minister Danny Alexander said the move was designed to provide certainty to the bond markets

However gilts sold by the UK would not be transferred, instead an independent Scotland ‘would need to raise funds in order to reimburse the continuing UK for this share’.

Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander, who is an MP in Scotland, said the UK Government’s new position should reassure the financial markets.

‘We want to make sure people who lend us money continue to do so at very low interest rates,’ he told BBC News.

‘Everybody knows that an independent Scotland would be likely to face considerably higher interest rates, less credibility in the international finance markets.

‘What we want to avoid is any sort of idea that the rest of the UK – taxpayers across the whole of the UK, including in Scotland between now and in September – pay any sort of separation surcharge, an extra cost on debt that causes uncertainty in the financial markets.

“But an independent Scotland would still be required to take its fare share of the debt, were Scotland to vote to separate from the rest of the UK.’

The pro-independence campaign seized on the announcement as proof it was setting the agenda and would demand a currency union – allowing Scotland to continue using the pound – in return for accepting a share of the debt.

British ministers have so far refused publicly to ‘pre-negotiate’ terms of independence for Scotland.

But Mr Salmond said the decision by the Treasury shows that UK ministers are coming to terms with ‘reality’.

He added: ‘These documents make clear that we remain prepared to negotiate taking responsibility for financing a fair share of the debts of the UK provided, of course, Scotland secures a fair share of the assets, including the monetary assets.

‘Any market uncertainty in the gilts market has been caused by their own refusal to discuss the terms of independence before the referendum and it is their own insistence that Scotland would be a new state that lands them with the unambiguous legal title to the accumulated debts of the United Kingdom.

‘That position is now beyond argument and today’s announcement makes clear that Scotland would be in an extremely strong negotiating position to secure that fair deal.’

Voters in Scotland will have their say on a referendum on independence on September 18, 2014

He said opponents of independence must end the ‘bluff and bluster’ and ‘listen to the overwhelming majority of the people of England who, polls indicate, see the common sense of sharing a common currency’.

However, UK Chancellor George Osborne has ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to continue using the pound if voters choose to go it alone.

The Scottish Government set out two possible positions on debt sharing in its formal White Paper on independence last November.

It explored the historical balance of public spending and tax since 1980, when figures became available, or a population-based share.

It calculates a historical share of debt interest could be £3.9 billion in 2016-17 or £5.5 billion based on a per head share.

(Click here for the original article >>> http://secured.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2538639/England-ALL-Scotlands-debts-voters-independence-Salmond-asked-fair-share.html)