Category Archives: daily telegraph

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

The House of Commons Library published a paper in November last year which was brought to my attention recently.  The report has the figures for the financial year 2016/17 of the Barnett Formula.  The Barnett Formula determines that differential spending on UK citizens depending on which of the UK countries those citizens live in. 

The summary of the House of Commons research paper shows that England has the lowest national average spent on every man, woman and child.  This was £8,898 in 2016/17.  In Northern Ireland by contrast, it was £11,042. 

If you live in the English “Regions” of the South East, East of England, East Midlands, South West or West Midlands you get less spent on you than even the average of England.  It is only in London that British Government spending is more than even one of the other Nations of the UK.  It is slightly more than Wales.  London has £10,192 for every man, woman and child, instead of the Welsh average of £10,076!

This Barnett Formula spread in payments, which advantages Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only for so-called “identifiable expenditure”, which is about 88% of the total public spending of the UK.  So the costs of the Foreign Office and of membership of the EU, and of Foreign Aid and Defence parts of the 12% of total public spending are not covered by the Barnett Formula. So also no allowance is made for the policies under which the British Government has headquartered British State agencies in Scotland and Wales, as for instance the DVLA and HMRC.  This is of course a yet further method of increasing the British State subsidy to those nations. 

It is worth pointing out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get yet a further method of subsidy at the moment through the EU.  The contributions to the EU which come out of English Taxpayers’ pockets (as that is the only part of the UK for which there is a net tax revenue) are funnelled back to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as EU payments, under the so-called “Conduit Effect”.

Some of the additional subsidy to London is not part of the Barnett Formula but is explained by the British State spending money on the security of its political class with its large expenditure on armed police to guard the State’s buildings, the provision of diversity barriers and all the other paraphernalia of running the British State. 

The other aspect of this of course is that London is now in John Cleese’s words “no longer an English city”.  The subsidy coming into London is from the predominantly English Regions to the predominantly non-English communities within London.  This is the fiscal background to the anti-English, metropolitan, inter-nationalist, multi-culturalism of the Labour Party’s predominance in London. 

Here is the House of Commons summary and also there is the link to the report itself which you can download>>>http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scot;lands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

In the last few days The Scottish Conservative Party under their multiculturalist Leader, Ruth Davidson, have been gloating again about Scotland’s “Union Dividend”.

Here is a quotation of part of their press release:-

“Scotland now raises eight per cent of UK total revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Total spending per person in Scotland for 2017/18 was £1576 per head higher than the rest of the UK, compared to £1448 per head the previous year.

Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary Murdo Fraser said:

“If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear.

“By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average. For a family of four, that’s more than £6000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

Here is the link to the original on the Scottish Conservatives’ Website>>> http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scotlands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

As a demonstration of how “Fake News” looks here is the text of the Telegraph’s article about this with its minor editing of the Scottish Conservatives’ Press Release:-

SNP urged to ditch plans for indyref2 as figures reveal Scotland’s £13 billion deficit is four times the size of the UK’s

22 AUGUST 2018 • 

Nicola Sturgeon has been urged to abandon  her threat of a second independence referendum after official figures revealed that  Scotland ran up a £13 billion deficit last year that was four times the size of the UK’s.

Official figures on the state of the country’s finances also disclosed a record “Union dividend” of nearly  £1,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

That figure is made up of public spending that was £1,576 higher per person north of the border in 2017/18, while Scotland’s public sector tax contributions were £306 less per head.

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (Gers) figures – the difference between what the country raised in taxes and what it spent – revealed a total deficit of £13.4 billion, or 7.9 per cent of GDP -down from 8.9 per cent in 2016/17. The UK’s spending deficit was just 1.9 per cent of GDP, down from 2.3 per cent.

Overall, Scotland’s public finances showed a slight improvement, thanks to North Sea revenue rising by more than £1 billion.

The First Minister claimed the figures proved Scotland was “on the right trajectory”, when considered alongside recent positive labour market statistics.

She added: “With the limited economic powers currently at our disposal, the actions we are taking to promote sustainable economic development are helping to ensure that the key economic indicators are moving in the right direction.”

However, the Scottish Conservatives said the finances of the rest of the UK were improving faster and the gap between the two was widening, with Scotland now raising eight per cent of total UK revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Murdo Fraser, Tory finance spokesman, said Ms Sturgeon needed to ditch plans for a new bid to break-up Britain or explain how she would find the billions required to file Scotland’s economic black hole in the event of independence.

He added: “If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

These figures confirm that being part of a strong United Kingdom is worth nearly £1,900 for every single person in ScotlandDavid Mundell

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear. By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1,576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average.  For a family of four, that’s more than £6,000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

ENGLAND’S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND TO BE BULLDOZED AND CONCRETED BECAUSE OF MASS IMMIGRATION

ENGLAND’S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND TO BE BULLDOZED AND CONCRETED BECAUSE OF MASS IMMIGRATION


I was talking to a UKIP friend of mine recently. We were agreeing that the English Democrats had had a significant indirect impact on the EU referendum because it was us that first suggested that there should be a linkage made between mass immigration and our inability to control it whilst we were still members of the EU.

There are of course other issues where mass immigration has a direct impact on things that most English people would not want to see happen.

For instance at the moment it is the case that large parts of England are likely to be concreted over as part of a massive housebuilding push in order to accommodate not only the 10-15 million people that came into the country during the Blair years, but also May’s migrant millions.

In the period since Theresa May became Home Secretary, back in 2010, to date there has usually been in excess of half a million migrants coming into our country every single year.

So, even on the understated figures that Government usually comes out with, that must mean at least 3 million more population in the country. Therefore at least a couple of million new houses that have to be built as a result of May’s migration mess.

Simon Heffer wrote an article about this recently which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th January 2017 under the Title “Javid’s folly would be to build in Tory back yards”. Although he is rather concentrating on the electoral prospects of the Conservatives, a matter which I have little interest in, nevertheless he makes many good points which we need to bear in mind.

Here are a few key quotations from his article:-

“Thanks primarily to two things – unchecked immigration and high divorce rates – we have insufficient housing. Prices are so high in the south-east that many live with their parents well into their 30s. Essential staff, such as teachers and those in the emergency services, struggle to find a home anywhere near their workplace. Something must be done and Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, has announced a White Paper on the matter.

The United Kingdom has roughly the same population as France, but in square miles is well under half the size. A disproportionate number of Britons live in England, and a disproportionate number of them live in or around London. We had a taste of Government policy last week, before the White Paper, in the announcement of 14 garden villages and three garden towns. The villages will provide around 50,000 homes and the towns will have at least 10,000 each. Even then, at today’s rate of immigration, we will within months be back to square one.

Some of the proposed villages are well-placed in Essex, for example, one is destined for an unremarkable corner of bleak farmland between the M25 and the Southend Arterial Road, and will if anything improve the landscape. But the Hertfordshire garden town will swallow up existing small villages, destroying their character and history, and eat up some green belt outside the postwar new town of Harlow. The Government seems to wish to avoid confronting one key issue, which a satisfactory White Paper would address explicitly: does the Government have a conception of something called rural England that would continue to exist in our increasingly overcrowded country and, if so, what will it do to protect it? Or should those of us who live in the countryside regard our environment as temporary, and at the whim of government?

I fear it has no such conception at all. It contemplates concreting over tracts of prime farmland just as we leave the Common Agricultural Policy and have to fend more for ourselves. This would also mean, in the south-east, that towns now separated by countryside will soon join up with each other, making huge new conurbations. Bullied by the Government, local councils will accede to this blight on the homes of hundreds of thousands of existing residents, and there is no shortage of developers (some of them Tory party donors) ready to exploit this weakness. Any idea that this will be done by local consent is rubbish: the problem is too acute, and the desire for an easy way out too pressing.

The White Paper will seek to reform planning laws to make such bullying irresistible. Mr Javid knows that just tweaking the system will have no appreciable results at all. But that is all right in theory: doing it in practice will be quite another matter. It not only means that hundreds of thousands of people who think they live in the countryside will wake up one day and realise that, very soon, they will not. It will also put additional stress on the road and rail network in a part of England where that infrastructure is already at breaking point. Mr Javid is far from stupid, and he ought to realise not just the practical difficulties of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot in the home counties, but also the electoral suicide his party could be committing if it pursues this course.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/sajid-javids-folly-would-build-tory-back-yards/ )

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings


The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>> http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/files/2014/10/Taking-England-Seriously_The-New-English-Politics.pdf

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can’t agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because “in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”.

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and also claimed “that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”.

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin’s article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians


By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn’t going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
“People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons.”

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

In the run up to elections there often appears to be a sudden surge of media stories claiming that the British political system is offering a real choice. 
 
The article below by Janet Daley entitled “Politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again” is very much a case in point.  
Instead of any sort of analysis Ms Daley makes wild claims of there being some great philosophical difference between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.  

By implication she is dismissing the alternative view that both of them are simply careerist members of a political class that hyper inflates relatively trivial differences between their respective parties in order to excite some interest from supporters who are thereby deceived into thinking that there is a real difference between their policies.  Also that their rhetoric is meant to placate some vocal critics like UKIP for David Cameron or Len McClusky of Unite for Ed Miliband.  As it used to be put, when I was in the army, “bulls**t baffles brains!”.  

I would suggest that in fact a more considered study of both parties would be far more likely to come to the conclusion that the British political system is more like a Punch and Judy show where both parties are substantially the same but make a great show of a fight on the “stage”. 
 
Consider Labour’s and Conservative’s policies towards England:-  Both the leaderships want us to remain in the EU; Both want to continue very similar policies on immigration;  Both wish to spend more money than they actually receiving in tax revenue, thus in the long term beggaring the country in order to, in the short term, give themselves political advantage;  Both believe in Liberal Internationalist, Neo Colonial,  Military interventions across the world; Both believe in vast additional borrowing to pay Foreign Aid; Both intend to build over vast swathes of English countryside to deal with a housing crisis which is fundamentally caused by having allowed probably over 5 million immigrants into the country in an almost wholly uncontrolled manner over the last 10 years!  Where’s the difference Janet?

Despite all this Janet Daley’s article shows she wishes to puff up what are fundamentally piffling differences over a little bit of tax here or there!

See what you think.

British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again

For the first time in a generation, voters will have a chance to make a real difference at the general election in 2015
By Janet Daley

  Politics is back – by which I mean real politics when people with actual differences of opinion are up to a fight for public support and the approval of the electorate. The centre ground, once decreed to be the only territory on which elections could be won, is now a no man’s land, a demilitarised zone, an empty space evacuated by the serious parties in preparation for a genuine fight to the death over fundamental beliefs. After those two starkly contrasting party conferences, we know that what will be on offer at the next election is a choice not just between rival sets of government policies, but competing philosophies of the good society and radically differing ideas of how government should encourage virtuous b_ehaviour.

In two equally astonishing leaps, the party leaders have embraced diametrically opposed positions on the role of government and the responsibility of the private individual. Ed Miliband’s Principle of Together is nothing less than the old model of socialist communality in which the desires of the individual must always be subsumed under collective need, and the state is the distributor of economic fairness. David Cameron’s vision is of a country in which personal responsibility for oneself and one’s family is paramount, in which hard work is rewarded and self-determination is a social ideal. This isn’t just a political or economic disagreement: it’s a profound ethical parting of the ways.

By accident or intention, everybody has effectively accepted that the ceasefire is over. The entire national conversation about how we should be governed no longer needs to be held within the confines of soft Left consensus. The Tories will talk unashamedly of free market, low-tax low-spend, small government Conservatism, and Labour will unequivocally endorse big government, state-sponsored collectivism. Political discourse has not been as visceral as this since the 1980s. There will be an urgent and meaningful debate about the principles which determine the conditions in which life is lived. Isn’t that wonderful?

For the first time in a political generation, you the voter – whom this is all supposed to be about – will have a chance to make a real difference. Instead of a phony war between political leaders who were marketing themselves as slightly improved versions of each other, there will be two radically opposed conceptions of what government is for, and what responsibilities ordinary people should be expected to assume. If you are old enough to remember, you may say that we have had this argument before: the general election of 1983 put the choices as starkly as they could be put, and the country made its judgment so decisively that Labour had to re-invent itself to get back into the discussion. True enough. Yet here we are again, being offered a re-run. And what makes it particularly interesting is that it may not turn out the same way.

Maybe the country is made of different stuff than it was back then. Perhaps it has been softened up by Labour’s extension of welfare dependency into the middle classes and by the remarkably effective media assault on market forces. Nor do the times seem quite so desperate: the lights are not going out and the nation is not being regularly held to ransom by lawless trade unions. Yes, it could end differently this time. But at least we will get to talk about it. There will be a chance once again to debate the most important social questions of our time and to bring the democratic process back to life.

What that means is that everybody’s voice will matter. The most pernicious aspect of the “centre ground” mentality was that it was, ironically, so illiberal. It narrowed the acceptable limits of political possibility to a tiny range of received opinions. Anyone who could not subscribe to that set of premises or social attitudes was simply beneath consideration. Either you agreed with the consensus or you were not fit to participate. (Or as one particularly enthusiastic proponent put it, you are so out of touch with modern life that you might as well go away and die.) Bizarrely, the centre ground merchants became, in the end, so mutually affirming and autocratic that they seemed not to notice how ugly their certainty had become.

Never mind that the tenets of the orthodoxy were in fact mutually contradictory – the promotion of gay marriage being at odds, for example, with respect for ethnic minority cultures, or the regard for women’s rights clashing with the rules of some religions – and so could not actually be enforced with any consistency. Politicians all had to make the same untested incoherent pledge to a vague liberal niceness. It was the sympathetic intention that mattered – not the logic or the fact that the programme was actually impossible to implement. It is on the practical implementation that these two competing world views will be tested. The Miliband option offers little so far in the way of detail except for commitments to yet more public spending while at the same time accepting the need (more or less) to cut the deficit.

But the Tories, even hamstrung by coalition, have begun to show the country what their approach might mean. Iain Duncan Smith has argued from the start that his welfare reforms were not just designed to cut government spending. His case has always been that welfare dependency is more than a waste of money: it’s a waste of life. It is human potential that is being squandered as well as taxpayers’ wealth. That is a microcosm of the brave new Conservative pitch: the clearest practical justification of the claim that the Tories are now the real party of compassion and social justice.

As I say, the country may not be ready to buy this. It may not see the economic or moral sense in allowing people to keep more of what they earn in the first place, instead of taking a large portion of it away, and then handing it back to those the state believes to be deserving. It may have become convinced that people do not necessarily know what is best for themselves and their families, or that, left to their own devices, they will make only self-serving, anti-social choices.

But at least we can go at it now for all we are worth: make the case, have the full-blown, bare-knuckle barney without having to pretend that there are no real grounds of contention. The outliers at the more extreme ends of the spectrum who had been forced out of mainstream political discourse altogether – the Occupy movement, the Ukip recruits and beyond – can come back on to the pitch. The democratic process will be able to encompass the red-blooded as well as muted shades of pink. And oddly enough, with a reasonable amount of good will, this will make democratic politics more genuinely liberal than it has been for decades.

  Here is Janet Daley’s article >>> British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again – Telegraph

“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 )