Category Archives: english independence

BRITISH Government can’t even look after the British

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

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

Here is Peter Oborne’s article in full:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: English Independence gaining traction!

           Re: English Independence gaining traction!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND OUT OF EU = ENGLAND OUT OF EU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLAND – "Better off OUT"

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

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

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

“Eurocrats secretly admit that countries are better off out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Minister sells out England for £££billions!

Scottish Minister sells out England for £££billions!

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

ByMatt Chorley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

A slightly late Christmas present from Wales?

Here is a small but slightly late Christmas present from Wales for all those who have been campaigning for the English nation to be treated equally to the more favoured nations of the ‘UK’ like the Scottish and the Welsh. We therefore have long been ignored and derided by the British Establishment which denies our right to a Parliament, First Minister and Government for England with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones.

Here however we have a report in the Independent about an interview and a thoughtful speech by Carwyn Jones, the Labourite First Minister of Wales and therefore the leading Welsh political figure. In the interview and speech he acknowledged two things of great importance to any English patriot:-

1) There is virtually no popular demand nor popular support for breaking up England into “Regions”; and

2) the only realistic constitutional option for representing England within a federal ‘UK’ would be an English Parliament with an English First Minister and Government.

The thrust of Carwyn Jones’ speech is also that the UK itself must be drastically reformed with a much diminished role for Westminster and Whitehall.

I would agree with these arguments if I was a Welshman and thus benefitted from the Barnett Formula and therefore it is my countrymen that were getting more taxpayers’ money spent on them than an equivalent Englishman with equal needs.

However as I am an Englishman I can’t help but notice that this extra money comes from English taxpayers and is being spent unfairly in a way that is against the interests of ordinary English people and also of the English nation.

The simplest way out of the constitutional conundrum that Carwyn Jones is addressing is Independence and the liquidation of the Bankrupt ‘UK’. That way each nation will have to live with its own means and we English will be free to spend our nation’s money on ourselves. We will also be a newly reborn nation state and therefore not a signatory to the EU treaties and so will be automatically out of the EU. This is a result which would please the vast majority of English patriots – but not Mr Carwyn Jones!

What do you think?

Here is the article about Carwyn Jones’ speech:-

Carwyn Jones: ‘The UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation’

Britain should permanently grant major new powers to the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, bringing an end to Parliamentary sovereignty in Westminster no matter what the result of the Scottish independence referendum, the First Minister of Wales has said.

Carwyn Jones said the current constitutional arrangements were no longer functioning and the UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation in 2014.

In an interview with The Independent, the former barrister, who has led the Welsh Labour government since 2009, said: “Whatever happens after the referendum in Scotland there will need to be change because the UK’s constitution has come to the end of its ability to deal with devolution, to imbed devolution and clarify what each level of Government does.”

He added: “I think it’s simply a question of putting in place a constitution where it is understood what the different levels of government do. Does that mean the end of Parliamentary sovereignty? Well I’m afraid it does.”

Mr Jones, who opposes Scottish independence, said that a yes vote would also lead to problems for the remaining parts of the UK. He cautioned that if Alex Salmond’s SNP party wins the argument for independence in September’s referendum, the rest of Britain faces being overshadowed even more by a too-powerful England.

“The UK could not carry on as it is with England, Wales and Northern Ireland,” he said. “There would have to be a fundamental rethink of the balance of the constitution. You have three nations, one of which had 92 per cent of the population. That would need to be addressed.”

Speaking in the Senedd, which is home to the 60 members of the Welsh Assembly, Mr Jones said that Wales could not be treated as “second class” compared to Scotland – an argument that seems compelling when heard in view of the economic revival that has come to the Welsh capital.

Should Scotland choose independence, however, the outlook for Wales is uncertain. “We lose an ally and a friend in terms of the balance of the UK and being able to work together on a common path way when we need to.”

Mr Jones has found himself pressed into service for the campaign in Scotland to reject independence – or Project Fear as it has been dubbed by nationalists. He has also enraged Mr Salmond by threatening to veto his hopes of keeping the pound should the countries go their separate ways in September.

On the prospect of an independent Scotland remaining in a currency union, Mr Jones said: “It is bound to affect Wales when we have a situation when in order to take action in terms of monetary policy it has to be an agreement between at least two governments. That is just a recipe for dithering as far as I can see and that’s going to affect people in Wales.”

However, a spokesman for the “yes” campaign in Scotland claimed tonight that a yes vote would help Wales.

“A Yes vote next year will complete Scotland’s home-rule journey, but it will also benefit the rest of the UK – including Wales – by helping to redress the huge economic imbalances currently in favour of London and the South-east of England.

“Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, which currently lose out because of this over-concentration in one part of the UK, can therefore share in the benefits of a Yes vote for Scotland next year.”

Mr Jones’s opposition to Scottish independence has created an unlikely alliance between Welsh Labour and the Coalition – but he hinted that the vote to keep the union could be put in jeopardy by politicians “coming from London to tell the people of Scotland what to do”.

He said as a Welshman he had a unique contribution to make to the debate. “It was important to introduce a fellow Celtic perspective in that regard. This is not simply about Scotland versus England, this is about the effect on other constituent nations of the UK as well,” he said.

Unlike Scotland, Wales enjoys only conferred powers – “graciously given” by Westminster, Mr Jones said. This has to change, he added. “We need certainly the understanding that the fact in law that Westminster could abolish the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly without even a referendum has to go. It’s a theoretical possibility, I know that. That can’t possibly be right, the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales has the right to veto Assembly bills is not the sign of a mature relationship in the 21st century. That has to go,” he said.

Mr Jones also rejected the Coalition’s offer to vary income tax in Wales until the country’s £300m shortfall in Westminster funding through the Barnett formula is addressed.

He said that a future Cardiff government with greater powers could, however, tax resource and energy companies such as those engaged in fracking or coal-bed methane extraction.

“There is a fundamental emotional issue here for us and that is we need to have proper control over our resources to create jobs in Wales. We don’t have that at the moment,” he said – hinting that while he does not want Wales to itself become independent, more devolved economic powers are needed.

Although he said he did not detect support for English regional assemblies, Mr Jones believes the prospect of an English parliament remained the “elephant in the room” in the constitutional debate.

While the the Welsh economy is growing faster than anywhere else except the South-east and North-west of England, Mr Jones has faced a battering from opponents over the state of public services.

Wales has eschewed free schools, academies and league tables but recent international comparisons revealed the country had fallen behind the rest of the UK in educational achievement, and its teenagers appear to be slipping down the table against other developed countries. In addition, patients in Wales must wait longer than fellow citizens of the UK to be transferred from an ambulance to an A&E department.

Support for devolution in Wales is now higher than it was at the time of the 1997 referendum, when barely half the population voted in favour. Now only 12 per cent want to abolish it, although apathy seems to prevail, with fewer than four in 10 voters turning out for a 2011 referendum on more law-making powers for the Welsh Assembly.

Meanwhile the fight to win the argument over Scottish independence will continue with Carwyn Jones likely to take an increasingly high-profile role.

(Here is the original article>>>Carwyn Jones: ‘The UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation’ – UK Politics – UK – The Independent)

The case for a policy of Independence for England

 
At our Conference and AGM on the 21st September 2013 in Leicester the English Democrats will be debating the following resolution:-

“The English Democrats believe that England should again be an independent nation state and we will campaign to that end.
The English Democrats demand that a referendum be held for the People of England to decide whether England should become independent again and cede from the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

Here is the accompanying paper in support. What do you think?

The case for a policy of Independence for England

By Derek Hilling and Leon Martin 

After more than a decade since the advent of devolution within the United Kingdom, the British government refuses to recognise the legitimate concerns of the people of England regarding the unfairness of the devolution settlement. In that period nothing whatsoever has been done to address the concerns of the English, who believe that they are paying for yet receiving none of the benefits of devolution. The main political parties refuse to even discuss these concerns and some of their leaders even deny the very existence of England as a separate nation. In light of this outright intransigence the English Democrats believe that the time has come to promote the cause and principles of English Independence. This means that England should break-away from the United Kingdom, and once again become an independent nation state.

The English Democrats are calling for a referendum on this matter so that the people of England may be given a choice to determine their own future.

The English Democrats start from the basic principle that the English Nation is entitled to self-determination and its people are entitled to citizenship of that nation. England’s membership of the United Kingdom denies us expression of these entitlements.

The leaders of all the main political parties conspired to create devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but did nothing to offer the same rights to the people of England.

The consequence of devolution has been that the people of England now suffer from unfair distribution of the resources of the United Kingdom. We pay more than our fair share of taxes but receive less than our fair share of the resources. It is clear that this injustice will never be righted until the people of England break-free from the shackles of the United Kingdom.

The benefits of England becoming are independent country are that:

An immediate cessation of England’s membership of the European Union , saving £billions in contributions;

English business would be free from the E.U.’s bureaucratic red tape;

England would regain control over our own borders, ending the unchecked immigration that the E.U. has fostered;

English People would be able to promote their historic culture and identity which has been denied them by the British state;

We would promote an English cultural renaissance and give our people a sense of pride in who they are and what they have achieved;

English customs and manners are valued as part and parcel of the fabric of our culture and could be promoted as the public culture of England;

England would be free from the need to subsidise both the rest of the UK as well as large parts of Europe;

England could broaden its trading relations with all countries, especially the emerging economies in Latin America and Asia; we have become too reliant on Europe which is in the grip of economic paralysis.

If the people of England decide that we should become independent, then an English Government would be formed so as to conduct negotiations with the Scottish Government and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, as to the division of the debts of the United Kingdom. England cannot be expected to go on forever subsidising those who cannot pay their own way.

We believe that the best way for the people of England to improve their living standards and achieve the national unity and social cohesion that we all want is for England to become an independent nation. The English Democrats are convinced that a free and independent England will be able to rid itself of the scourge of debt and release the talents of its people to create a strong and vibrant economy.