Category Archives: robin tilbrook

BRITISH Government can’t even look after the British

There is a recent and excellent article by Peter Oborne which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 19th February.  Whilst unfortunately it still shows that the Peter Oborne is both still fixated on Britishness and he has fallen into the common layman’s error that there is such a concept as “British Law” (whereas in fact there is the jurisdictions of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland, together with Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, etc!)

The point that he makes so well is the blindingly obvious one that not only is the British Government uninterested, unwilling and, indeed, incompetent to look after the interests of England and Englishness, but it is not even capable of showing an interest in looking after British interests.  The sooner it is consigned to history the better!

Here is Peter Oborne’s article in full:-

The US has bullied our banks into handing over a billion dollars

Quietly and without notice, Britain has surrendered control over its trade with Iran

“Recently, a friend of mine purchased a small quantity of Iranian saffron from a Birmingham merchant for £30 over the internet. This transaction was legal according to British and international law. It did not contravene any United Nations resolution. He transferred the funds via PayPal, the international payments firm. The money was paid in pounds sterling. What happened next was outrageous. PayPal sent him a menacing email informing him that he was in breach of US law, and asked him to sign a form admitting that he had behaved illegally.

At this point my friend rang me in alarm. He is a British citizen, had done nothing wrong under British law, yet here he was being threatened by the United States as if he was a criminal. When I looked into the matter, I quickly discovered that my friend’s experience was the tip of an enormous iceberg. It is not just private individuals who are persecuted in this way by the United States. Private companies suffer from exactly this harassment, as do banks.

Without protest, Britain has given away control over its trade with Iran to a department inside the US Treasury called the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). This body monitors US sanctions by pursuing foreign companies involved in trade with Iran. It has already persecuted major British banks, including RBS, HSBC, Barclays and Lloyds. In total, these banks have paid out more than a billion dollars in penalties, even though they have done nothing wrong under British or international law.

The most significant example is the British bank Standard Chartered, which specialises in doing business in the Middle East and Asia. It felt obliged to pay an incredible $667 million to OFAC and other agencies. In fact, Standard Chartered was blackmailed by the US authorities. The bank was given a choice between being cut out of all business with the US, or complying with its sanctions regime against Iran.

I am certainly not saying that sanctions are wrong. Indeed, it is essential to stress that in Britain we do have our own sanctions against Iran, for instance against companies or state entities alleged to be involved in nuclear weaponry. But these have been agreed democratically, in the sense that they are open to scrutiny and criticism in and out of Parliament. In a system that relies on rule by consent, this gives them legitimacy.

What is deeply troubling, however, is the presence of informal, secondary sanctions which the United States has inflicted against Iran by bullying British banks. These might as well be secret. Bankers never talk about them. Parliament has not debated, or even discussed, these sanctions. They haven’t been announced, let alone agreed, by any minister. They are not government policy. And yet the United States has enforced an informal banking boycott of Iran, unilaterally imposed on Britain and other foreign countries.

The response of the Government is very troubling. In the normal course of events, one would expect ministers to defend very stoutly any company or individual prevented from going about their lawful business by a foreign power. But neither Downing Street nor the Foreign Office have lifted a finger.

It is important to stress that this supine approach is new. Contrary to legend, Margaret Thatcher stood up strongly against United States pressure. According to my colleague Charles Moore’s superb biography, the Reagan administration tried to stop a British company, John Brown, selling turbines to a Russian gas pipeline project that would supply much of mainland Europe. Mrs Thatcher probably disliked the idea as much as Reagan. But she was adamant that British companies should not be subject to American laws, so insisted that John Brown fight its corner. Her defiance worked. “Maggie Thatcher has made me realise that I have been wrong,” Reagan eventually acknowledged. A new agreement removed sanctions and allowed John Brown to sell to Moscow.

But that was Thatcher. We are talking now about Messrs Cameron and Hague, who show no such determination to defend British interests against foreign threats. Indeed, by a perverse irony, it is actually easier for a US company to trade with Iran than a British one under the Coalition. This is because the bank of a US exporter to Iran can process payments without threat from OFAC, so long as the deal has OFAC approval. The bank of a British exporter will be persecuted, even though it has the approval of the British Treasury.

Though most bankers refuse to talk about OFAC, one insider told me it operates like this. “OFAC tells the British bank that it will suffer consequences (for example, loss of a US banking licence, or blacklisting) if it doesn’t agree to a settlement. The bank must agree to cooperate with the authorities by ceasing all business with Iran. It must then pay a penalty stretching to millions of dollars. It is also made to promise not to reveal the terms of the agreement or the process that led to it – even though the US authorities can do so if they wish.

“This is like plea-bargaining. The case isn’t taken to court: presumably the banks judge that they will be penalised less if they settle with OFAC. And this threatening process creates an example for others, so it is no wonder that the rest of the banking industry falls into line.”

So far as I can discover, it is impossible for any British bank to evade this US sanctions regime. Even if the contract with Iran is written under British law, and specifically outside the scope of US jurisdiction, that seems to be no protection to any company targeted by OFAC. Any bank that has an operation in the United States, or makes any transaction in US dollars, places itself within reach of punishment.

The effect of this financial blockade is to ensure that the British banking industry cannot provide trade finance or money transmission services for entirely legal trade with Iran. Even medical or humanitarian goods can’t be paid for. Most banks are so terrified of the United States that they will close down the account of any customer who even has a connection with Iran. The flimsiest and most unproven suspicion is enough for banking facilities to be withdrawn. The boycott has been enforced by British banks, even though it is against British policy, because of American threats.

The same imbalance exists in other areas. For example, Tony Blair negotiated a treaty which gave the United States powers to extradite British citizens, which it frequently exercises, yet we are unable to do the same in return. The failure of British politicians to protest is extraordinary. Prime Minister Cameron and Foreign Secretary Hague speak out eloquently when the European Union is accused of intrusion on British sovereignty. But when it comes to the United States, they are completely silent – and this silence means assent.

Perhaps they are happy enough that Britain should be a client state of America, but unhappy to pool sovereignty with the European Union. If so, they should come forward and say so. One thing is certain. The current shameful and humiliating situation would never have been tolerated by a prime minister, such as Margaret Thatcher, who stood up for British interests. It is time that David Cameron started to behave more like the Iron Lady, and less like Tony Blair”.

 
Here is a link to the original article>>>The US has bullied our banks into handing over a billion dollars – Telegraph

Re: English Independence gaining traction!

           Re: English Independence gaining traction!

The Independence campaign has moved on and up, now  that one of the leading English intellectuals, Prof Roger Scruton, has come out for English Independence. 

Click here>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pov .

Here is a transcript of what Prof. Scruton said:-

“In all the complex changes leading to the Scottish bid for independence the English have never been consulted. The process has been conducted as though we had no right to an opinion in the matter. It was all about Scotland and how to respond to Scottish nationalism.

As an Englishman I naturally ask why my interests in the matter have never been taken in to account. When the Czechs and Slovaks achieved their amicable divorce it was by mutual agreement between elected politicians. What is so different about Scotland that it decides everything for itself.

The Union of England and Scotland was formerly declared in the Act of Union in 1707 but it had been an emerging reality throughout the preceding century. In the conditions and conflicts of those days it was impossible for the two nations to regard themselves as fundamentally distinct. They shared an island, a religion, a language and a Monarch and both had its vows to the protestant cause. It is true there was a border between them and things one side of the border were not always replicated on the other. Scots law remains a separate system from the English. Styles of dress, architecture, popular entertainment and speech were for a long time quite distinct, in part because of the striking difference in climate and since the Reformation organised religion has taken a very different form in the two countries. The lowland Scots opting for the Calvinist and Presbyterian version and remaining largely hostile to the elaborate episcopal offices that appeal to the English. But the differences were less important than the history and geography that held the two nations together. It is true that the Union was resented by the Highlanders, many of whom had retained their Catholic faith, their Gallic language and their loyalty to the deposed Stuart Kings. The cruel suppression of the Jacobite rebellions, the forbidding of the tartan, the persecution of the Catholics and the expulsion of the crofters from their homes, all these things are well known and don’t cast credit, either on the English or on the Lowlanders, who principally benefitted from the Union.

Nevertheless during the years of Empire building merchants from both countries combined to reap the benefits of British naval power and to explore the far corners of the earth in search of profit and in their wake they brought the imperial government that they shared. Moreover empire building had to be backed up by military force. The Napoleonic wars sealed the Union between the Scots and the English who happily adopted Great Britain as the name of their united country.

Neither people could have survived the wars of the 20th Century had they not fought side by side and with total commitment to the Union. As a result of those wars however, the Empire was lost and an entirely new political landscape emerged from beneath the smoke. It is no longer possible for us to see the Union as it was seen throughout the course of the 19th Century as something natural and unquestionable. The enterprise that joined us has vanished. So too we hope have the military threats. Each nation is, for the time-being at least, wrapped in its own internal problems.

It can be said that the Scots are still reeling from the effect of Margaret Thatcher’s radical economic policies and her introduction of the Poll Tax. They are bound to ask themselves whether they have had a fair share of the prosperity that is visible nearly everywhere in the south of England and the English tend to blame the migrations that threaten to overwhelm them on a succession of Labour Governments by allowing mass immigration into England and refusing to confront the European Union’s commitment to the free movement of peoples.

The Governments of Blair and Brown seriously undermined the English sense of identity. At the same time through the creation of a Scottish Parliament they gave a new identity to the Scots. The effect of the Scottish Parliament however, was not only to ensure the Scots would govern themselves, but also to make it more likely that they would continue to govern the English. The Labour Party did not want to lose those Scottish MPs, since it was thanks to them and the Scottish vote that the Labour Party had achieved such a large majority in Westminster. Scots were disproportionately represented in the cabinets of both Blair and Brown. Tony Blair owed his position in the Labour hierarchy in part to the networks that had grown in that country. Elections to the Scottish Parliament showed that the Scots had shifted their allegiance from Labour to the SNP, but they still want the English to be governed by the Labour Party. Hence they vote to place Labour politicians, who they don’t particularly want at home, in Westminster.

As a result of this the English, who have voted Conservative more often than Labour in all post-war elections have to accept a block vote of Labour Members of Parliament sent to Westminster by the Scots. The process that brought this about was one which the Scots themselves were given the final say in a referendum from which the English were excluded. In other words the process of devolution has an air of gerrymandering. The effect of which has been to secure a Labour bias in the Westminster Parliament while allowing the Scots to govern themselves in whatever way they choose. And the process continues. In response to Alex Salmond’s bid for independence the people of Scotland have been granted another referendum, but again the people of England have been deprived of a say. Why is this? Are we part of the Union or not? Or are the politicians afraid that we would vote the wrong way? And what is the wrong way? What way should we English vote, given that the present arrangement gives two votes to the Scots for every vote given to the English. Should we not vote for our independence given that we risk being governed from a country that already regulates its own affairs and has no clear commitment to ours?

The Scottish economy is subsidised by the English, but this does not mean that England would be better off without Scotland. You give subsidies to your dependents because you depend on them. Subsidies are also investments which have returns in the long run but they more than justify the cost. On the other hand it could be that the Scottish economy has suffered from the Union overall. Boswell attributes to Dr Johnson the remark that “the noblest prospect that a Scotsman ever sees is the high road that leads him to England”. Johnson’s purpose was to ridicule the romantic adulation of the Scottish landscape which was all the rage at the time, except perhaps among those that have to live there. But he touched without intending it on the principle cause of Scotland’s economic problems which is the loss of human capital. Educated Scots have constantly taken Dr Johnson’s high road to England, carrying with them their knowledge and their energy and investing it outside the borders of their homeland. In just the way that the EU is syphoning away the young middle class from Poland and the Czech Republic so that our union served to deprive the Scots of some of the people that their economy most needs.

The security that we have enjoyed in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought with it a certain complacency in the matter of Defence. During the Cold War the Scottish land mass was absolutely fundamental to our strategy and our nuclear deterrent is housed in Scottish waters. And the Scottish air bases were constantly called upon to deter Soviet violations in our air space. Scottish regiments are at the forefront of our campaigns today and without them we would be much less capable of defending ourselves in a serious crisis.

In my opinion defence is the sole reason for thinking that the break-up of the Union might be bad for both our countries. The Union would have to replaced by a strong and committed alliance but I think this would happen just as the colonial administration of America transformed itself in time into the Western Alliance which brings the British and the Americans together and fighting side by side in every major crisis.

Suppose then we English were finally allowed a say in the matter. Which way would I vote? I have no doubt about it. I would vote for English independence as a step towards strengthening the friendship between our countries. It was thanks to independence that the Americans were able at last to confess to their attachment to the old country and to come to our aid in two World Wars. Independence is what real friendship requires and the same is true for those like the Scots and English who live side by side.”

INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND OUT OF EU = ENGLAND OUT OF EU

The EU Commission President, Senor Barosso, has unwittingly confirmed that if either Scotland or England get independence from the UK then they are out of the EU!

On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, 16th February, Mr Barosso made clear that an independent Scotland was a “new State” and so would be automatically out of the EU.

He was clearly unaware of the UK’s unique constitution structure because he was apparently unaware that in the event of the dissolution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” all the constituent nations of the UK would also be “new States”.  Therefore by Barosso’s logic, we would all be out of the EU!  Not a result that I imagine he would relish!

So England can either get out of the EU through a dissolution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” either by Scottish secession or by our own English independence!

So thank you Mr Barosso.  Now we have a road map of two easy ways out of the EU maze!

This is what Senor Barosso said:-
“When asked about the Scottish referendum on independence later this year, Mr Barroso said he respected the ongoing democratic processes surrounding the  debate and said it was for the Scottish people to decide on the country’s future.

But he added: “In case there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state, it will have to apply and… the application and the accession to the European Union will have to be approved by all the other member states of the European Union.”

He went on: “I don’t want to interfere on your referendum here, your democratic discussion here, but of course it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state.

“We have seen Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance. So it is to some extent a similar case because it’s a new country and so I believe it’s going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of one of our countries getting the agreement of the others.”

(Here is a link to the Daily Express Article about this >>> NO negotiation of freedom of movement says defiant EU President Jose Manuel Barroso | UK | News | Daily Express )

“Campaign for Britishness” gives cause for a glimmer of amusement!

The Daily Telegraph’s relentless talking up of the Union in its “Campaign for Britishness” is obviously tiresome to any English nationalist but occasionally gives cause for a glimmer of amusement!

Such an opportunity arose in the article, which I copy below by Graeme Archer, in which he obsesses about the importance of the Union because his sense of Britishness arises from his mixed Scottish and English background!  This is in a paper which, like all the Lib/Lab/Con supporting media, usually claims that Britshness is open to all ethnicities in a spirit of inclusive multi-culturalist diversity, a “Team GB”, with a tincture of globalisation!

Mr Archer is however clearly speaking for a significant constituency if the results of the 2011 Census are studied.  The results of the Census show that it is clear more than half of the under 30% of the population of England that regarded themselves as being in any sense British, are Black Minority Ethnic (BME) or of White Irish, White Scottish or White Welsh ethnic origin!  So Mr Archer your feelings of Britishness are not so untypical of your ethnic origin!

Here is Graeme Archer’s article.  See what you think:-

First the poetry, then the prose. I’m talking about Scotland, of course. The fight to retain the UK, remember? No? I don’t blame you. Until recently, the independence vote has had insufficient coverage down here – that is, in England, where I live.

The poetry of the Union is simple, but provides the strongest reason to oppose Salmond’s carve-up-a-small-island nationalism: that I was born in Scotland to an English father and Scottish mother, and now live in London.
That’s it. But this one sentence contains the big question that separatists prefer to avoid. Namely, why should my parents be made foreigners to one another, and I to one of them?

The Nationalists brush it aside, because the whole SNP shtick is to pretend that such a profound change can take place with no consequences other than Scottish government policies acquiring an even more Left-wing sheen. But if Salmond wins, my late father is recast as a foreigner, and I will become an immigrant. That’s what being a separate country means. My romantic attachment to the Union is no more ineffable than my love for my mother and father, and its companion desire that we remain citizens of the same country.

The lack of interest among the London media – compare coverage of the referendum with that of the Olympics, whose memory David Cameron yesterday invoked in belatedly making the case for the Union – is strange. A few weeks ago, I came in to the Telegraph offices to meet Douglas Carswell, the Conservative MP for Clacton. During our debate on this paper’s Telegram podcast, he used his precise, passionate intellect to outline the case for withdrawal from the European Union. What could be more natural than for two Eurosceptic Tories to discuss the outcome of the EU referendum, which will be held by 2017?

We should have talked about Scotland, of course. After all, if Salmond isn’t defeated, there might not be a recognisable UK left by 2017 in which to hold that all-important vote.

On the day we met, I heard one brief mention of the Scottish referendum on a radio bulletin, reporting something that Alistair Darling had said about university funding. Why have British politicians, and Tories in particular, had so little to say about a real referendum – the Scottish vote will happen, subject to meteor strikes, with 100 per cent probability – yet so much to say about the EU referendum, which, contingent as it is upon a general election outcome, must still be classed as a theoretical proposition?
Partly English politicians – particularly Conservatives – have held their tongues for fear of helping Salmond. The theory is that the Scots so loathe English Tories that the mere recitation of a desire to maintain the Union, if uttered in an accent not drawn from north of the border, will release antibodies into the political system that will attack the Unionist host.

I’m not so sure. The more extreme nationalists are, fortunately and by definition, atypical, and my family-based anti-separatism is hardly unique. By staying silent in the debate, I worry that English politicians have merely reinforced the SNP narrative, about some mythical, mutually exclusive, foreign nature to our inter-relationship.

The other reason for English diffidence is probably politeness. Disquiet over Scottish preferentialism – over tuition fees, for example – hasn’t boiled into political anger. English votes for English laws, a formula I support, never commanded enough political bandwidth to become a dominant issue. So English politicians think: “This is for Scotland to decide, and anyway I’d only make matters worse” – and end up saying nothing about a vote that could destroy the UK.

Thank heavens, then, that this has begun to change. Last week, Mark Carney visited Edinburgh to spell out the truth: an independent Scotland’s preferences in a future currency union would no more dominate decision-making in the Bank of England than did those of Cypriots within the European Central Bank. Currency union absent political integration is the reason the single currency could never work. This is Salmond’s best currency outcome, remember: his alternative is to join the euro.

And yesterday, from the Prime Minister, at last, some poetry for the Union. Only Scottish residents (not “only Scots”) can vote in this referendum, but its outcome will affect “all 63 million of us”, he said in Stratford. And then: “We want you to stay.”
Perhaps Mr Cameron’s Home Counties accent sounded English to Scottish ears. But then, so did my Norfolk father’s. My own Ayrshire tones aren’t anything like Salmond’s West Lothian voice. It’s not the accent that matters, but the words those accents conjure into existence.

So say it with a Devonion burr, or with glo’al-stopped Estuary. Say it in Mancunian, in Liverpudlian, in Jamaican, in Bengali, Greek, Geordie and Brum. Use the Queen’s English or Yorkshire directness. Say it any way you like, whether you’re a politician or a business leader or just an ordinary Briton, but let Scotland hear it, over and over again: we want you to stay.

(Here is a link to the original>>>If Scotland kills off the the Union, I will be an immigrant in my own country – Telegraph )

Guest speaker at Kings College School, Wimbledon

On Thursday I was the guest of Kings College School, Wimbledon, which is a non-boarding public school.  For those who do not know Wimbledon it is in a very nice part of what is now in effect West London.

As a guest speaker I was following in the footsteps of MPs from the various other parties, including not only the usual ones, but also the SNP and Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

I had been asked to come to talk to the Sixth Form about the politics of English culture and nationalism.

I introduced the topic by going through our exceptionally long history as a united people and nation state.  After the constitutional landmarks I then talked about where we are now using the results of the 2011 Census.

I then got so many interesting questions that I didn’t get to make the speech that I had prepared to make.

It was however interesting to again see from some of the questions that the main challenge to English Nationalism comes from those whose vision is of multi-cultural “Britishness”.

It was nice to be able to reassure those who thought of themselves as being English that theirs is still the majority view in England by showing them the results of the 2011 Census.

For those who consider themselves to be in national identity terms “British only” but who are ethnically English, it was also a pleasure to be able to assure them that they were in a tiny minority in the country!  They are now of course a minority within that minority of less than 30% who consider themselves to be in any sense British!

ENGLAND – "Better off OUT"

Occasionally an article appears which is so excellent that it deserves to be quoted in full.  Below is such an article by Daniel Hannan the Eurosceptic Conservative MEP on the topic of EU membership.

There is of course the faults of his insistence on referring to the UK and his indifference to England!

On the latter point I met Daniel Hannan a few years ago.  I wanted to see if he might be a convert to English nationalism in due course, but his family background is such that I do not think that that is very likely.  However I don’t know where his allegiance would lie in the event of the dissolution of the United Kingdom. 
In any event here is his excellent article:-

“Eurocrats secretly admit that countries are better off out.

The world, we keep being told, is coalescing into blocs. No single nation can afford to stand aside. The future belongs to the conglomerates.

It’s hard to think of a theory that has become so dominant with so flimsy a basis. The story of the our age has been one, not of amalgamation, but of disaggregation: empires have split into smaller and smaller units. Fifty years ago, there were 115 states in the United Nations, today there are 193. What’s more, small territories are generally more successful. The wealthiest states on Earth, measured by per capita GDP, are Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, Switzerland, Macau, Australia, the UAE, Kuwait, Sweden, San Marino and Jersey.

So why do Euro-integrationists keep telling us that we’re heading towards a kind of Nineteen Eighty-Four carve-up, in which massive Asian, European and American superstates will call the shots? (In Orwell’s classic novel, the British Isles were part of the Anglosphere rather than Europe, but let’s leave that aside.) In truth, the claim is pure propaganda. Eurocrats don’t believe it themselves.

How do I know? Well, I’ve just been reading the EU’s report on relations with Iceland, marked “for internal use only”. Although its tone reflects the official line – looking forward to a resumption of accession talks if and when Iceland comes to its senses – the details tell a very different story. First, the paper acknowledges the main reason that Iceland has bounced back from the banking crisis:

The small Nordic country has largely recovered from its deep economic crisis, thanks to a devaluated [sic] currency and a strong trade surplus — a turnaround that was made possible in part by the country’s distance from the euro area.

Then comes the really telling passage. Discussing Iceland’s trading profile, the report notes that that frozen lump of volcanic tundra has the twin advantages of small size and few “defensive interests”. Defensive interests is a term used by trade officials to mean “sectors which a country wants to shield from competition”. In trade talks, negotiators distinguish between offensive interests (areas where they want the other party to open its markets) and defensive ones (areas where they want to prevent liberalisation). Iceland, being an open economy, has relatively few protectionist sectors. As the report notes:

This has made easier to conclude free trade agreement with bigger trade partners. The most recent FTA concluded on 15 April 2013 between Iceland and China, is expected to boost exports to China while eliminating tariffs on import of manufactured goods. It is the first free trade agreement concluded by a European country China. A second one was concluded by Switzerland in July.

There you have it. The Eurocrats may bang on in public about trade blocs but, in private, they admit that small is beautiful.

Now ask yourself this question. If Britain were not bound by the “defensive interests” of the EU as a whole, from French films to Italian textiles, is it conceivable that we would not by now have signed comprehensive trade deals with the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets, such as China and India?

We sit on few natural resources in this mild, green, damp island of ours. We depend on what we buy and sell. Yet, crazily, we have locked ourselves into a customs union with the only continent on the planet whose economy is shrinking. Ça suffit ! as we Old Brussels Hands say. ¡Basta ya!”

(Here is the link to the original >>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100255422/proof-at-last-eurocrats-secretly-admit-that-countries-are-better-off-out/).

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)

Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines after the end of the UK?

Last Thursday I was a guest of the Royal Navy and looking over the construction of our latest nuclear powered hunter/killer submarine, HMS Artful, at the construction docks in Barrow-in-Furness. 

It was absolutely fascinating and very impressive to see a submarine the length of a full premier division football pitch, four storeys high, being readied for its launch! 
These submarines are enormously impressive and a hugely significant element in the projection of naval sea power.  For example, just one of these submarines in the area of the Falklands could be expected to sink the entirety of an Argentinian invasion fleet!

In the course of our meeting I was briefed on the general capability of our latest generation of hunter/killer submarines which would certainly be very frightening to any potential enemy; and also on the principles and the general extent of our submarine based nuclear deterrent. 

Equally interesting were my discussions with various crew members on the impact of the breakup of the United Kingdom with the prospect of Scottish independence. 

All nuclear submarines are currently based at Faslane, but in the event of Scottish independence they would have to be moved to either Portsmouth or Plymouth.  The English members of the crew seemed very happy with that prospect, whereas the one Scot that I spoke to seemed to be rather torn, in particular over the question of which nationality he would choose in the event of Scotland becoming independent.  He gulped a bit at the thought of having to choose to be English if he wanted to remain in the Royal Navy!

All agreed that Scottish independence would be extremely good for the economy of Barrow in Furness and of Portsmouth and of Plymouth.  It might also lead to a resurgence of the dockyards on Tyneside.  It maybe therefore that all those towns and those parts of England that would be likely to benefit from naval warship building and servicing etc., would be prime targets for campaigning support to English independence. 

What do you think?

NICK GRIFFIN’S BANKRUPTCY AND THE EFFECT ON THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY’S (BNP) PROSPECTS

NICK GRIFFIN’S BANKRUPTCY AND THE EFFECT ON THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY’S (BNP) PROSPECTS

My first reaction on hearing about anybody’s financial ruin, even if I disagree with them politically, is to be willing to lend a sympathetic ear to the reasons why it has happened. In the case of Nick Griffin that initial sympathetic response was reduced when I read his bizarre comments about how helpful bankruptcy was going to be in freeing him up for standing in the EU elections.

This suggests a level of ignorance or silliness beyond what anyone would expect of somebody who studied Law at Cambridge University.

I then also heard stories of how he had run up an enormous bill with his solicitor fighting various, by the sound of it, hopeless cases and then it was being claimed on his behalf by spokesman (Simon Darby) that he had a claim for negligence against these solicitors.

As someone who deals regularly with bankruptcy cases I can assure anyone that it is highly unlikely that a court would have allowed a bankruptcy order to be made if any credible evidence of an even remotely arguable claim against the solicitors was put forward. No, the only conclusion from what is being said is that Nick Griffin has been behaving in a financially irresponsible and downright silly way.

The effect of the bankruptcy should however prove interesting. The first point to note is that I am told that this is Nick Griffin’s second bankruptcy. If so, he will remain bankrupt probably for his whole life as there is no automatic discharge from bankruptcy on your second bankruptcy.

Second, I am told that large sums have been hidden away in accounts and property in amongst other places, Croatia. If that is true and he does not disclose then he could well go to prison because failure to cooperate with your Trustee in Bankruptcy is a serious criminal offence. Whilst he is not automatically disqualified from office or for re-standing for the position of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of his bankruptcy, if he is sentenced to an even suspended term of imprisonment of more than a year, then that does deprive him of office and disqualify him for five years.

Even more interestingly and politically significant is the effect on Nick Griffin’s position as Chairman and Leader of the BNP. The BNP constitution is now quite an enormous morass of strange terms like “final determinator” and runs to over 90 pages.

The general law is that membership of a political party is, in legal terms, equivalent to membership of, for example, a golf club, and the same rules and principles apply to both. It follows that membership of a political party is a “proprietary interest” which along with all other proprietary interests are automatically transferred on bankruptcy from the bankrupt to initially the Official Receiver and then after the creditors have had their meeting to whoever has been appointed as the bankrupt’s Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The job of the Trustee in Bankruptcy is, of course, to gather in as much money as possible for the bankrupt’s estate, sell any properties that he has got and pay himself and the creditors as much as possible.

So one of the “assets” that the Trustee in Bankruptcy will hold is Nick Griffin’s membership of the British National Party. This means that as of this moment Nick Griffin is not a member of the British National Party. He cannot resume his old membership except by buying it from the Trustee in Bankruptcy and unlike most clubs the BNP’s constitution does not expressly provide that membership is either personal to the individual or automatically terminates on bankruptcy. Office within the British National Party would appear to be personal, but is restricted to only those who have long-standing and continuous memberships. It follows from this that Nick Griffin is legally no longer either the Chairman or Leader or the holder of any office whatsoever in the British National Party.

You may ask what Nick Griffin could do to get himself back into the position of legally being Chairman or Leader. The answer to this is that it would be difficult because the BNP has a rule against new members having office. The Chairman has the power to waive the rule, but obviously there is no Chairman at present. It follows from this that the rule would have to be applied and that imposes a probationary period on any new member before they are allowed to become an office holder.

If anybody from the BNP who is reading this has any interest in becoming Leader and/or Chairman of the Party, then the way is wide open. The present situation is that Nick Griffin cannot properly stand for re-election. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks whether anyone in the BNP takes up this opportunity to take-over the Party!

I have also noticed that on Facebook and generally over the internet there are comments from Adrian Davies who I understand has been involved in some of the cases against Nick Griffin and the BNP that have led to Nick Griffin’s current situation. As a solicitor practicing this area of law I would say that I do thoroughly agree with Adrian Davies’ analysis.

The idea that all of this is in anyway beneficial either for the British National Party or for Nick Griffin is a strange one. Here is what Adrian Davies has to say:-

”How will the creditors get paid? Here’s how. The party’s constitution gives the chairman an indemnity out of party funds for liabilities incurred qua chairman. Obviously the party’s assets cannot be seized to pay his private debts, but the debts due to Gilbert Davies were indisputably incurred while acting as chairman, not for Gri££o’s private purposes.

Upon the chairman’s bankruptcy, the trustee stands in his shoes and can pursue the indemnity whether the bankrupt likes it or not. The bankrupt probably won’t like it, but that is neither here nor there.

Even though an unincorporated association has no legal personality, and is not within any part of the Insolvency Act 1986, the High Court has an inherent power to wind up an unincorporated association; see Re Lead Company’s Workmen’s Fund Society [1904] 2 Ch. 196 and Blake v. Smither (1906) 22 TLR 698. The Court also has the power to appoint a receiver of the BNP’s assets to give effect to the trustee’s indemnity.

Because Gri££in doesn’t pay his own solicitors, he has trouble in obtaining legal advice, and generally relies on an unqualified crony and barrack room lawyer. As a result, he has not anticipated the consequences of his bankruptcy and does not understand them.

No doubt the trustee will exercise these powers. Any person operating “fronts” for the party would be at risk of contempt proceedings, and orders to account to the receiver or liquidator for monies received by them on the party’s behalf. Any person assisting the bankrupt in concealing assets or assisting the treasurer of the party in concealing or dissipating funds will be made personally liable.

The last part should be a warning to any of those who may be foolish enough to hide any assets which are sought after to pay debts owed.
More so as there are two other long running claims coming up, which may be as much as 175k.”

Poor Nigel Farage? Syrian slip-up or miscalculation?

                            Poor Nigel Farage? Syrian slip-up or miscalculation?
 
Late December 2013 turned out not to be a very good time for Nigel Farage, not only did Nigel Farage’s one time close and only close personal friend who is in politics, Godfrey Bloom give an interview of outstanding frankness and grievous long-term damage to Nigel Farage,
(click here >>>  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/20/ukip-godfrey-bloom-interview-punch )
but also his house was left without power over Christmas, leaving him and his family having to de-camp.  If these problems are not enough he also tried a flutter at Blair style “triangulation” and came an almighty cropper!  (If you will pardon the hunting expression!). 

But let us re-cap for a moment.  On 29th December 2013 Nigel Farage calmly announced that were he in power that he would open the “UK’s” doors to an unspecified but seemingly potentially very large number of “Syrian Refugees”. 

After the initial gasps of astonishment our left/liberal media types questioned whether Nigel wasn’t the same person as had been saying that “Britain is full”.  In reply to this Nigel Farage is reported as saying that “I have never ever said that Britain is full”.  The Huffington Post then obligingly published this article
(click here >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/30/nigel-farage-britain-is-full_n_4518312.html) in which there is a link to a BBC news interview in which Nigel Farage explicitly says “Britain is full”!  Result massive damage to Nigel Farage’s credibility as an honest politician.

As if that wasn’t enough, it then became apparent that a large number of people who had previously said that they supported UKIP or were intending to support UKIP were appalled that UKIP appeared to be as slack on the immigration issue as any Lib/Lab/Con politician. 

The initial UKIP response, as can be seen from UKIP’s Facebook page, was to try to argue that what Nigel Farage had said was totally consistent with UKIP’s published manifesto.  Frankly this point is slightly disingenuous as is pointed out in the Daily Telegraph article below. 

Nigel Farage, as the storm continued, then made a quibbling attempt to try to make out that there was a significant difference between the word refugee and asylum seeker.  However as anybody who has actually looked at the issue would  know the only difference is that a “refugee” is somebody who is in the act of fleeing, whereas an “asylum seeker” is somebody who has actually made an application through the immigration authorities for asylum.  The distinction therefore is not only trivial, but merely a matter of where a person is in the process of seeking refuge!

The UN Convention in any case does not require the UK to take any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers since they should be seeking refuge or asylum in the first safe neighbouring state, rather than in a country many of thousands of miles distant. 

As the storm of protest amongst potential UKIP members and voters continued, Nigel Farage then tried to play down the level of his earlier commitment, seemingly claiming that the only refugees that should be accepted were Syrian Christians.  A group which, I might point out, although in a terrible situation, are not the only minority group in Syria who are being genocidally targeted by murderous Islamist gangs that our government was recently talking about offering significant logistical support to! 

Needless to say Nigel Farage’s comment provoked outrage amongst all the secularist, Jewish and Muslim groups which he had until recently been seeking to bring into the UIKP fold!

So all in all Nigel Farage managed to achieve one objective in getting lots of media coverage, but in doing so he managed to annoy not only the left liberals in the media that he was seeking to placate, but also any sensible ordinary English people.  That is people who are simply fed up with the open door policies of mass immigration which have so changed the character of our country without any democratic mandate to do so over the last 50 years.  This has happened at a particularly alarming and unsustainable rate during the period of the last Labour government whose intention, as we now know, was to “rub the noses of the right” into the (dog mess?) of diversity like an incontinent naughty puppy subjected to old fashioned house training methods! 

Why has this PR disaster happened?  Well from my discussions with Nigel, I think he has a great need to be liked and to be the centre of attention.  Also he came across to me as somebody very likely to want to be “nice” and with a nostalgia for Britain’s old imperial position as the world’s policeman.  I think his position on immigration generally and asylum seekers or refugees, in particular, has evolved in quite an opportunistic fashion from being someone who is quite comfortable with immigration.  As he often says his surname derives from a French Huguenot refugee and he is of course married to a German.

The issue of immigration was simply taken up as a populist positioning on the aspect of EU membership and the single European market:- free movement of people. 

So in short I think Nigel Farage was giving expression to his genuine view that Syrian “refugees” should be allowed to come here, but I suspect he also thought it would get a lot of extra coverage during perhaps a news starved holiday season and also some useful Blair style “triangulation”!

One of the things it does however show is that now that Godfrey Bloom is no longer Nigel’s confidant there is no-one else in the leadership of UKIP that Nigel will go to to sense check things before he makes any announcement.  I wonder if this is going to be a recurring problem?  In any case I bet Nigel regrets giving vent to this particular flight of fancy!

Here is Paul Goodman’s and the Telegraph’s take on the whole Farago.  What do you think?

Does Nigel Farage want to join the Conservatives?

By urging ministers to accept Syrian refugees, Ukip’s leader has played a canny game

 Why did Nigel Farage say this week that Syrian refugees should be admitted to Britain – a view apparently at odds with his party’s outlook on immigration, and certainly in conflict with the instincts of its supporters? There are three possible explanations.

The first is that he said it because he believes it. Such a straightforward explanation would fit nicely with the breezy, plain-speaking, straight-from-the-shoulder persona that the Ukip leader wants to project.

The second is that he was merely repeating Ukip’s present position. The party’s website helpfully explains that “immigration Policy is currently undergoing a review and update. The full policy will be published in due course.” However, its holding “statement of principles” explains that “Ukip would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations”. So what Mr Farage said was in accord with his party’s policy on the matter, such as it is.

The third is that – since politicians are seldom as simple as they like to appear – the Ukip leader is up to something. What could it be?

Let us consider the evidence of his former colleague and long-time Brussels flatmate, Godfrey Bloom. Interviewed recently, Mr Bloom – a member of the European Parliament, until recently representing Ukip – claimed that the party “is in the grip of an internal battle for its future”, that senior staff “are all stabbing each other in the back”, and grassroots members are being “purged”. He declared: “This is 1933 Germany, night of the long knives. I’m waiting to be dragged out of the pub and butchered.”

Who was the Führer in this bloody metaphor? Mr Bloom left little room for doubt that he had Mr Farage in mind. And as if evoking the Nazis was not bad enough, he went on to name an organisation that strikes almost as much fear and loathing into the hearts of Ukip members – namely, the Conservative Party. Mr Farage, he said, has always really been a Tory and is “desperate to be a Conservative again”. He is “looking for a deal with the Tories”. Indeed, “the deal has already now been done”. Ukip will allegedly stand down candidates in key seats, and its leader will be rewarded with a title and a seat in the Lords.

To be fair to Mr Farage, Mr Bloom is scarcely a disinterested observer. The former withdrew the whip from the latter, during the Ukip conference earlier this year, with an ease that demonstrates the dominance he has achieved within the party. Mr Bloom’s chief crime was to have hit a journalist on the head with a Ukip brochure. Mr Farage will surely have been tempted in his time to hit the odd journalist over the head with a Ukip brochure himself, but clearly felt that the timing and the manner were unhelpful.

Of course, Mr Bloom’s suggestion of a clandestine deal between Mr Farage and David Cameron – with the Ukip leader perhaps merging his party with the Conservatives, and certainly going to the Upper House – is preposterous. The Ukip leader has no time whatsoever for the Prime Minister, whom he sees as a conviction-free member of an interchangeable political class. But Mr Bloom undoubtedly touched a nerve.

Mr Farage has helped to build Ukip up from almost nothing. In 1997, it won just over 100,000 votes. By 2010, that had grown to just under a million. In between, it won some 15 per cent of the vote in two sets of European elections – beating both Labour and the Liberal Democrats last time round. It has come second in several by-elections, including a major contest in Eastleigh earlier this year, and now holds about 150 council seats. It would be surprising, at the next election, if Ukip were to reach the 10 per cent or so of the vote that it currently boasts in opinion polls. But it is hard to see it being squeezed back down to the 3 per cent it took last time round.

Because Ukip tends to take more votes from the Tories than from any other party, its showing could make the difference in 2015 between Mr Cameron remaining Prime Minister or Ed Miliband taking office. So far, so good for Mr Farage – or at least, so powerful.
But his strength is a wholly negative one. He may be able to turn Mr Cameron out, but he cannot put himself in. Ukip cannot possibly hope to match the third of the vote that remains the Tories’ electoral base. Indeed, first-past-the-post leaves it unlikely to win a single seat in the Commons. For all the distance the party has travelled, it remains as far from office as ever.

This leaves Mr Farage with precisely the choice suggested by Mr Bloom. Does he want to settle down in his snug in the European Parliament – making speeches, writing books, cracking jokes, provoking headlines and ending up as a “national treasure” (heaven help him), secure in his salary and pension? Or does he want to do something rather than just be something – that’s to say, become a man of government rather than a man of opposition?
Mr Farage is clever enough not to answer such questions directly, but also smart enough to show a sense of direction. Though scornful of the Prime Minister, he has been guardedly respectful of other senior Tories, such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. He has said that he could “have a conversation” with the London Mayor – who, more sweepingly, has described Mr Farage as “a rather engaging geezer” and, in a Bloom-type moment, as “someone who is fundamentally indistinguishable from us”.

Like the Ukip leader’s earlier attack on the vans advising illegal immigrants to go home or face arrest (which caused just 11 of them to leave the UK), the intervention over Syria was a reminder of Mr Farage’s desire to keep his party respectable – one with which a future Tory leadership could deal. It was also a sign of his growing electoral influence. Fear of what Ukip would say will undoubtedly have been a factor in the Government’s decision not to admit Syrian refugees. Mr Farage is able to have it both ways: first frightening ministers off admitting the Syrians, then attacking them for being hard-hearted.

The headlines he won for the move (and the discomfort he has caused Downing Street) may not be worth the anger it sparked among many of Ukip’s members and supporters – in narrow political terms, at least. Mr Farage seems to agree, since he backed down yesterday, stating that only Syrian Christians should be admitted.

But the Ukip leader seems to have his eyes on a bigger prize. Perhaps, at some point in the future, there will indeed be a Tory-Ukip rapprochement: not the unworkable electoral pact that some are proposing at the moment, but the assimilation of part of the smaller party by the bigger one – in much the same way that the Conservatives swallowed up the National Party and the Anti-Waste League during the early Twenties. And maybe the Ukip leader will be part of such a realignment.

But in the meantime, he has other fish to fry – winning headlines, tilting at David Cameron, striving all the while to push his party just a little nearer the mainstream of British politics. So was he speaking his mind on the Syrian refugees, or repeating his party’s position, or proving some of Mr Bloom’s fears correct? The answer turns out to be: all three at once.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10542611/Does-Nigel-Farage-want-to-join-the-Conservatives.html)