Category Archives: scottish independence

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!

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


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

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

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

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

E + S = GB   therefore   GB – S = E 

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

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

Scottish Independence: Constitutional implications for the rest of the UK

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

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

“ARTICLE 1

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

ARTICLE III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee has asked for answers to specific questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer 5 above answers this question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 )

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?

Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

The Flag Institute (whose website is here >>> http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/) has published this survey:-

Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

The Scottish Government intends to hold a referendum of the Scottish electorate, on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom, on Thursday 18 September 2014. The question asked in the referendum will be “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The Flag Institute is the UK’s National Flag Charity.  We’re interested in your views on how you think a successful independence vote could (and should) affect the flag of the United Kingdom.
1. If Scotland becomes independent, do you think the Union Flag will or will not change?
2. If Scotland becomes independent, do you think the Union Flag should or should not change?
3. What arguments are there for changing the Union Flag following independence? (even if these are not arguments you support)
4. What arguments are there against changing the Union Flag following independence? (even if these are not arguments you support)
5. Not including the existing Union Flag pattern, what new designs do you feel might be worthy of consideration for a post Scottish-independence UK?
6. The current Union Flag is made up of the crosses of St George (England), St Andrew (Scotland), and St Patrick (Northern Ireland). Wales is not independently recognised in the current design of the flag.
If the Union Flag did change as a result of Scottish independence, should the new design include an element which represents Wales? Please explain your choice.
7. Who should decide IF the flag of the United Kingdom should change following Scottish independence.
The UK Government
The Royal Household
The UK Government and the Royal Household together
Citizens of the United Kingdom in a referendum
Other
8. If the decision was made to change the flag of the United Kingdom following Scottish independence, what combination of organisations and methods should be used to best choose the new design? Please choose as many or as few as you wish, or add your own suggestion.
The UK Government
The Royal Household, via the College of Arms
The Flag Institute, operating a public design competition
The Welsh Government
Governments of Commonwealth nations whose flags still include the current Union Flag design
Religious organisations
Other

I have written this to them. What do you think?

Dear Sir,

RE:- Survey : Questions
Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

I was interested to see your above survey but it is unfortunate that you seem to be confused over the legal basis of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain – which, with the greatest of respect to your organisation, shows that you may have been badly briefed by someone who must be ignorant of the relevant basic constitutional legal concepts.

No sensible lawyer would agree that, if Scotland leaves the UK, the “rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain” is thereafter a concept which continues to have any legal meaning. The words of the Act of Union 1707 are too clear to admit of that interpretation.
 
Here are the words of the Act of Union:-

“ARTICLE 1
THAT THE TWO Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;

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

It follows that there will be no automatic UK flag and that if there isn’t fundamental constitutional legislation to preserve some aspects of the Union that the flags will be those of the constituent nations of the UK eg England with the Cross of St George!

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman
The English Democrats

Bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service

Northfleet bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service to Stone

Yesterday’s Gravesend Messenger Newspaper had this story which I thought had an amusing twist especially as only the Bus Driver it seems had an understanding of English Law!

Actually, according to the Bank of England, Scottish banknotes are NOT legal tender in England. English banknotes issued by the Bank Of England are the ONLY legal tender in England and Wales.

Here is what the Bank Of England website has to say:-

Are Scottish & Northern Ireland notes “legal tender”?
In short ‘No’ these notes are not “legal tender”; furthermore, Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt.

In ordinary everyday transactions, the term “legal tender” in its purest sense need not govern a note’s acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland note as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland notes can be used in England and Wales. Holders of genuine Scottish and Northern Ireland notes are provided with a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. This is because the issuing banks must back their note issue using a combination of Bank of England notes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. More information on these arrangements can be found at
Here is the link to this item on the Bank of England website >>> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#16
 
Now here is that report from Kent:-

Northfleet bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service to Stone 

Heard the one about the Englishman, the Welsh pub and a Scottish fiver?

Well, it was no joke for Graham Sales when his note was rejected by a bus driver as he tried to board outside the Welsh Tavern in Stone.

The taxi driver was attempting to get home to Northfleet after dropping his car off for repairs at St Johns Road Garage.


Taxi driver Graham Sales with his Scottish £5 note

He hopped aboard and handed over the £5 Scottish note, only to be told by the driver she would not accept it.

The 47-year-old said: “The bus driver said she knew it was legal tender, but couldn’t accept it.

“She said ‘I’m not moving’ and I said ‘well, I’m not going anywhere’.”

The father-of-two said the driver turned the engine off and phoned the depot.

Bosses agreed to her issuing a ticket for £2 rather than the fare of about £3.50 as that was all he had in change.
“I felt disgusted and embarrassed. If I hadn’t had any change on me, it would have been a five-mile walk and taken me hours…” – bus passenger Graham Sales

He said: “I felt disgusted and embarrassed. If I hadn’t had any change on me, it would have been a five-mile walk and taken me hours.

“I showed I was willing to pay and she took all my remaining change. It was all the money I had on me.

“It is legal tender and I am a taxi driver and I have to take it.”

Once Mr Sales got off the bus, he spoke to a senior member of staff at the depot who confirmed the ticket machine did not have the facilities to recognise the currency – but agreed the bus driver should have accepted it.

Mr Sales now plans to make the bus journey back to Stone to collect his car and will be using the £5 note as a point of principle.

Arriva spokesman Linsey Frostick apologised, saying: “We do accept Scottish banknotes and on this occasion the driver was mistaken.

“The details have been passed to the depot manager so the driver can be made aware of their mistake.” 
Here is the link to the story >>> http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend_messenger/news/passenger-told-to-take-the-8157/
 
As Wikipedia reminds us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva) Arriva is a multinational public transport company headquartered in Sunderland, and (is) a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn. The latter is Deutsche Bahn AG is the German railway company, a private joint-stock company (AG) with the Federal Republic of Germany being its majority shareholder with its headquarters in Berlin. It came into existence in 1994 as the successor to the former state railways of Germany, the Deutsche Bundesbahn of West Germany and the Deutsche Reichsbahn of East Germany.

Is it any wonder that England is in a mess when even our bus companies are indirectly owned by foreign states?