Category Archives: scottish independence

ASTONISHING NEGLIGENCE IN UK GOVERNMENT NOT PLANNING OR PREPARING FOR POTENTIAL SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

ASTONISHING NEGLIGENCE IN UK GOVERNMENT NOT PLANNING OR PREPARING FOR POTENTIAL SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

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


English Nationalists have obtained the results of a Freedom of Information Act request which shows astonishing negligence and incompetence by the British Government.
Here are the key quotations:-
“the UK Government… is not planning or preparing for potential Scottish independence.”
“the UK Government has said that there can be no ‘pre-negotiations’ on what the terms of independence might be before the referendum takes place.”
“Unless people in Scotland decide that they no longer want to be part of the United Kingdom, the UK Government will not take any action that requires it to exclude Scotland and act only in the interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

The UK Government has, of course, no mandate to represent England, nor has it sought any Legal Advice on the internal constitutional implications for Scottish Independence. The only Legal Advice that it has sought relates solely and is expressly limited to the International Law ramifications. 

It is a basic legal and constitutional point that if the United Kingdom of Great Britain is dissolved by the repeal of the Act of Union of 1707, the resultant revived “Kingdom of England” will not automatically be in union with Northern Ireland.
E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E
Where E = “Kingdom of England”
S = “Kingdom of Scotland”
GB = “United Kingdom of Great Britain”

Robin Tilbrook said:- “ The British Government’s attitude is astonishingly complacent and negligent in failing to make any effort to plan or to prepare for potential Scottish Independence at a time when many non-partisan commentators are acknowledging that the result of the Scottish Referendum is “too close to call”.
“Not only has the British Government failed to make such obviously necessary preparations, but it has also expressly ruled out any pre-negotiations on the terms of independence before the matter is placed in a referendum before the Scottish people. Any Government that had a real commitment to genuine democracy would have made sure that the terms on offer were clear before a Referendum proceeded.”
“The British Government also talks about it acting afterwards in the interests of “England, Wales and Northern Ireland” in the event of a “Yes” vote for Scottish independence, but in fact it will have no mandate to do so. ”
“In the event of a Yes vote for Scottish Independence the English Democrats call for the interests of England to be represented by an English-only negotiating team and similarly for Wales and Northern Ireland to be so represented by their own negotiating teams and not by the ci-devant British Government!”
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

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


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

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

I recently put out this:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Churchill      Published: 01 July 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Union

Helena Kennedy, Barrister and member of the Lords:

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

Danny Alexander. Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

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

Rory Stewart, Tory MP for Penrith and the Border:

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

For Independence


Hardeep Singh Kohli, Scottish comedian:

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

Michelle Thomson, MD Business for Scotland:

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

Stewart Hosie, SNP MP:

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

Letters to the editor: The issues in the Scottish debate

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

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

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

The Scot’s poll can give hope to English patriots

The Scot’s poll can give hope to English patriots


I read with interest recently an article by Irvine Welsh, a Scottish author and socialist. The article published in the Evening Standard and was entitled “Scots poll can give hope to the Left across Britain. That issue is more than independence – this is about the journey of modernisation of these island’s political systems”

It seems to me that much of what Irvine Welsh says could be adapted for England, with a new title as above “The Scot’s poll can give hope to English patriots”. The article starts as follows:-

“Something strange and beautiful is happening in Scotland. The country is re-inventing itself from the inside out. People are talking about their futures as if they actually have them. It is that exhilarating, intoxicating, occasionally exasperating phenomena at work: welcome back participatory democracy. How these islands have missed you! To recap what’s happened in your absence: Everything has been set up in favour of a small, trans-national global elite. Most citizens are being or have already been reduced to the level of poorly paid, debt ridden servitude. Yes, many are still unemployed, but many more are underemployed, over-employed and set to work on barely liveable wages.

Within this context, looking at traditional indices of economic prosperity like unemployment rates, inflation, GNP is severely limited, as those don’t account for the reality of the past 35 years. The growing penury and financial instability suffered by everybody outside of society’s elites is the true political narrative of our times. It needs to be addressed locally and globally. This hasn’t happened in the UK. The main political parties remain complicit in the transfer of resources from our citizens to the super rich elite, under the advocacy of a private media, and through the constant lobbying of elected representatives. The “pragmatism” touted by politicians is one that solely addresses how to manage this movement of resources to the wealthy, to the constant reward of their corporate emissaries.

As a nation state the United Kingdom was an imperialist construct, and to this day it retains these undemocratic trappings: a hereditary principle, an un-elected second chamber, no written constitution and a ruling elite drawn from a narrow, privately educated strata of society …”

Irvine Welsh carries on in this way which many English nationalists would recognise as being equally true of England. Below is the whole article. I have inserted my comments in brackets.

Something strange and beautiful is happening in Scotland. The country is reinventing itself from the inside out. People are talking about their futures as if they actually have them. It’s that exhilarating, intoxicating and occasionally exasperating phenomenon at work: welcome back participatory democracy. How these islands have missed you.

To recap what’s happened in your absence: everything has been set up in favour of a small, transnational global elite. Most citizens are being or have already been reduced to the level of poorly paid, debt-ridden servitude. Yes, many are still unemployed, but many more are underemployed, overemployed and set to work on barely liveable wages.

Within this context, looking at traditional indices of economic prosperity like unemployment rates, inflation, GNP is severely limited, as those don’t account for the reality of the past 35 years. The growing penury and financial instability suffered by everyone outside of society’s elites is the true political narrative of our times. It needs to be addressed locally and globally.

This hasn’t happened in the UK. The main political parties remain complicit in the transfer of resources from our citizens to this super-rich elite, under the advocacy of a private media, and through the constant lobbying of elected representatives. The “pragmatism” touted by politicians is one that solely addresses how to manage this movement of resources to the wealthy, through the constant rewarding of their corporate emissaries.

As a nation state the United Kingdom was an imperialist construct, and to this day it retains these undemocratic trappings: a hereditary principle, an unelected second chamber, no written constitution and a ruling elite drawn from a narrow, privately educated strata of society.

In Scotland, voters have traditionally sent a block of Labour MPs to Westminster to represent them. Labour originated in Scotland as the party of Keir Hardie and had a strong home rule ethos. (Kier Hardie first made his name and came to prominence as a campaigner against mass immigration into his area of Scotland. In his day the mass immigration in question was of unskilled and semi-skilled Irish workers. He led a noisy campaign against importation of Irish workers which was reducing the wages paid to Scotland’s). 

 As it grew from a party of protest to one of power, Labour changed its view: the best way to govern was to send representatives down to London. Thus a career structure emerged, whereby “ambitious” politicians could move from local council to a safe Labour seat, then perhaps become a minister. When the party lurched to the Right in the Eighties, it was usurped on the “Left” by the SNP, a bourgeois nationalist party which had taken on social-democratic trappings.

Since then we’ve seen the rapid de-industrialisation of Britain, the sale of national assets, the dismantling of the welfare state, the squandering of oil revenues on dole payments and bread-and-circus foreign wars, and the steady erosion of the democratic, participatory spirit in politics.

Politicians changed. They were less likely to have trade union, industry or even professional backgrounds, more inclined to be career politicians, and people are now more alienated from them than ever. These changes took place under both Labour and Conservative governments.

Now Scotland, through the independence debate, is leading the way in the reassertion of the democratic ethos. The actual result of the referendum in September, while massively important, is less significant than the fact that this process has gained such traction.

Whether Scotland votes Yes or No, its people have got used to having a say in how their lives are run, outside of the self-interested and morally bankrupt party system. The drive for more of the same will continue. (The same could happen in England if we were successful in getting our independence referendum, or may be even if the Scots vote ‘YES’ and England is thereby reborn as an independent State following the dissolution of the UK.)

English protest politics have been of the Right in recent years: “Eurosceptic” Conservatives, Ukip, the BNP and EDL. But without the distraction of Scotland, England will have to look seriously at what it is and what it aspires to be. I would expect that narrative to change and the country to shake off its weary attachment to the cabal of centre-Right/Right-wing parties and their tired platitudes. Rather than enabling its political progression, Scotland holds England back by sending it more lobby-fodder careerists invested in zero substantive change. (England’s political traditions and culture are different from Scotland’s and I would think in any case the way which our politics will develop post-independence is likely to be very different to Scotland’s. I would not necessarily expect, as someone as steeped in the Scottish political culture as Mr Irvine is, to be fully aware of the difference or necessarily the different circumstances which brought it about.)

The Yes campaign’s biggest strengths are its vigorous grass-roots support, mainly from people who have felt disenfranchised by party politics. They are bolstered by the activities of the No campaign, with its unappetising coalition of the elite, the self-interested and the perennially servile, with the honourable but misguided exception of those who still believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that the British state can deliver social progress and economic justice.

The No campaign’s main asset is people’s intrinsic fear of change. The anti-independence campaign is, in tone and substantive argument, the same as any other throughout history. It seeks to make administrative procedural arrangements of varying awkwardness into compelling reasons for maintaining the status quo. The same arguments, citing different processes, were used in America, Africa and Ireland (and practically every independent nation in the world) with the same dire consequences predicted if they were ignored. Of course they were, and yes, life went on much the same as ever.

It isn’t in the nature of any state to want to cede territory but it begs the broader question: why is the British Establishment so desperate to keep Scotland? Well, if there’s a Yes vote, north of the border instantly gets rid of the hereditary second chamber, the City of London and Britain’s public-school elites, all those forces superfluous to good government but expensively grandfathered into our current system. There will also be a proper constitution drawn up, conferring citizen rights and designating responsibilities. It’s inevitable that people in England will then look north and think: “I fancy a bit of that.”

So Scottish independence is about a lot more than self-determination for that country: it is about the genuine modernisation of these islands’ political systems, conducted through the restitution of participative democracy. I don’t know whether September will offer up a vote of hope or fear. But I am convinced that those who pushed themselves to the forefront of the debate on their futures are unlikely to cede that power back to the elites, as represented by the Camerons, Cleggs and Milibands of this world. And that might be contagious.

(Here is the link to the original>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/irvine-welsh-the-scots-poll-can-give-hope-to-the-left-across-britain-9559111.html

SUPPORT THE SCOTTISH “YES” VOTE – FOR ENGLAND’S SAKE!


HERE’S OUR PRESS RELEASE:-

THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS REGISTER TO SUPPORT SCOTTISH “YES” VOTE

With there now being less than 100 days to go to the Scottish Referendum on the dissolution of the United Kingdom, the English Democrats have registered with the Electoral Commission to participate in the Scottish Referendum campaign to campaign for a “YES” vote.

A “YES” vote on the 18th September is the easiest way for Nationalists to achieve a dissolution of the United Kingdom, which since the end of the era great power politics, has been a persistent drag on the English Nation. The United Kingdom State is expensive, incompetently authoritarian and vain-gloriously addicted to its great power status whilst draining the wealth of England with its vanity projects, its international interventionalism and its failure to focus on the best interests of the English Nation.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I am delighted that the English Democrats have registered to help the “YES” campaign succeed in the coming referendum in Scotland. It is well worth us getting involved in supporting such an opportunity for the re-emergence of an independent Kingdom of England following the repeal of the Act of Union 1707.”

Robin added:- “For the mathematically minded I would put the UK’s dissolution as a formula:- E + S = GB ergo GB – S = E.”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
English Democrats’ FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org
Chairman’s FB
Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats

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 £30,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

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

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

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E)


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

Here is the relevant part of the report:-

Principles governing independence

The UK as the continuator state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E)


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

Here is the relevant part of the report:-

Principles governing independence

The UK as the continuator state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the article:-
 

Debt bombshell if Scotland quits UK


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

Scottish Government demands all UK State assets in Scotland outright and also a share in all other UK State assets!

Scottish reivers or Border Raiders in action

In a previous Blog article I reported on the submission which I put in on behalf of the English Democrats to the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords. The written submissions to the Committee have now been published on the Committee’s website.
 
Nichola Sturgeon MSP, for the SNP and the Scottish Government, has put in the Scottish submission. 

Whilst I think it would be sensible to see this document as a negotiating positioning document rather than the SNP’s final view on what they would be willing to accept, I think we can see that they are rapidly moving towards the point when not only will they demand many of the State assets of what is now the United Kingdom, but also will probably refuse to take any of the debt.

Click here to see the details>>> http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/6969.

What however does come out strikingly is the Scottish determination to not only have their own Scottish cake but to eat the English cake too!

Consider the following quotation from the Scottish Government’s submission:-

11. Following a vote for independence, the Scottish Government will negotiate with Westminster to agree a sharing of assets and liabilities that is fair, equitable and reflects Scottish needs and those of the rest of the UK. Assets already used to deliver devolved public services in Scotland, such as schools, hospitals and roads, would remain in Scottish hands. Physical assets located in Scotland and needed to deliver currently reserved services, such as defence bases and equipment, and buildings to support administration of welfare, tax and immigration, will transfer to the Scottish Government.

12. Assets located elsewhere in the UK will also have to be included in negotiations, as Scotland has contributed to their value over a long period of time. For physical assets like these, the equitable outcome may be to provide Scotland with an appropriate cash share of their value.

What we can now see here is that the Scottish position is that any UK State asset that is within Scotland should go to Scotland absolutely. Whereas any asset which is outside of Scotland is to be treated as being partly Scottish. 

Ironically Nicholas Sturgeon MSP says that this will be “a sharing of assets and liabilities that is fair, equitable and reflects Scottish needs…”. 

You have got to laugh!