Tag Archives: Scotland

Alex Salmond is a chancer in the mould of Paterson and Law

Alex Salmond is a chancer in the mould of Peterson and Law

Robert Henderson

William Paterson was the main mover of the Darien disaster which bankrupted Scotland in the 1690s through a mixture of ignorance, general incompetence and embezzlement; John Law was the Scot who ruined the currency and economy of Louis XV’s France through the use of paper money backed by land. The men had something in common with Salmond: they were both hideously reckless. This disastrous trait was evident in spades during the first of the debates between Salmond and Alastair Darling on 5 August 2014.

Overall the event was a truly depressing affair, being little more than a shouting match. Salmond spent most of the time with a fixed condescending smile glued to his face while Darling, thinking he had to be seen as assertive, frequently sounded and looked peevish as he adopted a behaviour horrendously at odds with his reticent and mild personality.

The discussion was horribly narrow, being concerned almost entirely with the material advantages and disadvantages of independence and even there much was either omitted or barely touched upon, for example, the large numbers of businessmen warning of a likely decamping from Scotland to England of many organisations if there is a YES vote or the loss of UK government contracts if Scotland becomes a foreign country. Other issues which had economic implications but a much wider significance, most notably immigration, remained unmolested by the debate. To a significant degree the debate was limited in scope by the disproportionate amount of time taken up by Salmond’s refusal to give a straight answer to the question of what currency Scotland would use if the vote was for independence . More of that later.

Completely lacking was any mention of the consequences of a YES vote for the rest of the UK in general and for England in particular. The debate was conducted entirely on the basis of what was to the advantage of Scotland. The fact that the programme was only available on terrestrial television in Scotland on STV or streaming through the STV Player (which crashed because it was unable to handle the demand) made some unkind souls see this as ironically symbolising both the exclusion of the rest of the UK from the debate and the many warnings from various quarters that Scotland would be a shambles if it goes alone.

Darling had the better of the debate simply because Salmond was so inept . Making cheap gibes about Westminster and repeatedly telling the same old evasive lies on any topic which caused him problems did not go down well even with the sizeable studio audience . The polling after the programme confirmed it. The YouGov poll taken after the debate showed those who have decided which way to vote will vote 61% No and 39% YES. With the undecided included there were 55% supporting a No vote and 35% backing independence, with 9% undecided.

Salmond was particularly weak on the question of the currency. He started from the objectively false claim that the Pound belongs to Scotland as much as it does to England. Darling counter-argued that the Pound belonged to the entire UK.

Legally speaking they were both wrong. The Pound Sterling is the English currency which Scotland was allowed to share when they signed the Act of Union in 1707, viz.

XVI That, from and after the Union, the coin shall be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in England, and a Mint shall be continued in Scotland under the same rules as the Mint in England; and the present officers of the Mint continued, subject to such regulations and alterations as Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or the Parliament of Great Britain, shall think fit.

The Scottish pound became defunct at the same time. If Scotland repudiate the Act of Union of 1707, they lose the right to use the Pound Sterling in the sense that they no longer have a political right to share the Pound on an equal basis with the rest of the UK.

Scotland could of course simply use the currency, but they would have no say over its the management, no printing or coining rights, and the Bank of England would not act as lender of the last resort to Scottish financial institutions. Scotland would also have the problem of buying enough Sterling on the open currency market. To do that she would have to sell goods and services abroad to provide the wherewithal to buy Sterling.

During the time set aside for the Salmond and Darling to question one another, Darling asked Salmond repeatedly what was his Plan B for the now that all three main Westminster Parties had stated categorically that there would be no currency union between England and Scotland if there was a Yes vote in the referendum. Salmond simply kept on repeating that if there was a Yes vote Westminster would cave in and accept a currency union. This so angered many of the studio audience that Salmond was roundly booed as time and again he evaded the question of what would happen if there was no currency union.

Salmond has stuck to the same line on the currency since the debate saying in an interview that “There is literally nothing anyone can do to stop an independent Scotland using sterling, which is an internationally tradeable currency.…the No campaign’s tactic of saying no to a currency union makes absolutely no economic sense. But it also makes no political sense, and is a tactic that is a deeply dangerous one for them.”

This is classic head-in-the-sand Salmon. His position is built upon two ideas: (1) that anything he demands for Scotland must happen simply because he has demanded it and (2) that any attempt by the English to point out dangers or look to their own interests is illegitimate and bullying. At one point Salmond made the incredible claim that if Westminster did not grant Scotland whatever they demanded Westminster would be denying the democratic will of Scotland. This piece of Lilliputian arrogance was sharply knocked down by Darling, who pointed out that all a YES vote would do would be to empower Salmond to negotiate terms with the rest of the UK.

At another point Salmond claimed that if there was no currency union , Scotland would not take a proportionate share of the UK national debt. Incredibly Darling did not challenge him on this issue, most probably because he would have had to say that if they did not take their share, Westminster would have to veto Scottish independence which is, legally speaking, ultimately dependent on the UK government agreeing terms.

No opinion poll over in the independence campaign has shown the YES camp ahead. The odds are heavily on the referendum will producing a NO result. If the ballot produces a seriously bad result along the lines of the YouGov poll cited above, Salmond and the SNP could be in a very difficult position because it would put another vote on independence out of the question for a long time, perhaps a generation. There would it is true be new powers given to the Scottish Parliament, but the ones likely to be on offer are likely to be things such as Scottish control over income tax rates and the collection of the tax by the Scottish government. Such developments would mean the Scottish government having to take the blame for tax rises or public service cuts if taxes are not raised. That would make the Scottish government and Parliament much more prone to unpopularity than they are now. If that happens, those living in Scotland would probably become less and less enamoured of the idea of independence because they would have had a taste of what both sides of government – taxing and spending – were under a Scottish government.

Even if there is a NO vote with a small majority, much of the difficulty which would occur with a heavy defeat for the YES side would still exist, for it would still be improbable that another vote on independence . would be held for at least ten years. During that time those is Scotland would have plenty of time to become disenchanted with their government having to make the type of hard decisions on taxing and spending which are the common political currency of a fully fledged state. Indeed, things might even be more awkward if the referendum is close rather than heavily against independence. That is because the closer the vote the more powers Westminster are likely to grant Scotland. The more powers given to Scotland, the greater the opportunity for those in Scotland to blame the Holyrood government rather than Westminster.

There is also the unresolved question of England’s place in a devolved UK. In the event of a NO vote and the granting of greater powers to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) there will be pressure for the number of Scottish MPs to be reduced, for an English Parliament or English votes on English laws. This will eventually produce circumstances which reduce or even completely exclude Scots from English domestic affairs.

Both the increased powers for Scotland and the reduced participation of Scottish MPs at Westminster will make it more and more difficult for the Scottish devolved government to blame Westminster for so much of the decision making will occur in Scotland. In addition, if the Commons becomes increasingly an English chamber through English votes for English laws or a completely English chamber if it is used as the English Parliament, that will produce English politicians who will not be able to neglect English interests as they are now more or less completely neglected.

What does Salmon really want? He certainly does not want true independence because he wishes to have a currency union with the rest of the UK, to keep the Queen as head of state and to join the EU, which would be a much harder and intrusive taskmaster than ever England would. I suspect that he does not want a YES vote but rather narrowly won NO vote. That would allow him to get the most potent form of DEVOMAX.

What will be the consequences if, against all the polling evidence, there is a YES vote? Salmond will rapidly find himself in the mire. His fantasy world is one in which there a currency union, England acts as lender of the last resort if Scottish financial institutions fail, Scotland is allowed to join the EU on the terms they now enjoy as part of the UK, England continues to push huge amounts of money by way of defence contracts and research grants to Scotland and the revenues from North Sea oil and gas continue to flow like ambrosia from heaven.

There is not one of the elements in Salmond’s fantasy world which will be realised. Even our Westminster politicians would not agree to a currency union which would involved England underwriting the Scottish financial system. The EU will be less than delighted at the prospect of one of the major EU members losing part of its territory to an independence movement because of the precedent it set for places such as Catalonia and those parts of Italy which favour the Northern League. It is likely that Scotland would have to apply for membership like any other applicant. This process would be both time consuming, perhaps several years, and Scotland would have to sign up to the requirements which any new EU applicant has to agree to, including membership of the Euro. There is also the possibility that the remainder of the UK could veto Scotland’s application to join the EU.

As for contracts for defence work and research grants, Westminster would have every reason to keep those within the UK. At best, Scotland would have to compete for the contracts and research grants as just another EU member. At worst, the rest of the UK might vote to either leave the UK or remain after obtain concessions which allowed preference to be shown to business and research institutions within England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Either way Scotland could easily find itself excluded.

That leaves the oil and gas dream. Production of the oil and gas in Scottish waters and the tax collected has been steadily declining, viz.:

Significant production decline and increasing costs have led to total revenues from UK oil and gas production dropping by 44% in 2012-13 and by 24% in 2013-14. In the last two years Corporation Tax revenues have declined by 60% from £8.8 billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion in 2013-14 and Petroleum Revenue Tax by 45% from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14. [These figures are for the entirety of UK oil and gas production, some of which is in English waters].

The decline is likely to continue, perhaps even speed up, as shale oil and gas deposits are increasingly being exploited. Nor should the possibility of other energy advances such as cheaper and safer nuclear power be ignored.

But those are only part of the problem for Scotland If the vote is YES. There are many public sector jobs in Scotland which deal with English matters, for example, the administration of much of the English benefits system. All those jobs would leave Scotland. Many Scottish businesses, especially those in the financial sector are likely to move at least their head offices to England. There would have to be border controls to stop immigrants using Scotland as a backdoor to England. More generally, the Scottish economy is dangerously dependent on public sector jobs. These jobs would almost certainly have to be severely culled. The Scottish economy is also very narrow with drink, food, financial services and the oil industry making up much of the private enterprise part of it. .

The danger for England would be a Scotland which got itself into a terrible economic mess and Westminster politicians bailing the country out with English taxpayers’ money . However, because the politics of the rest of the UK would of necessity become ever more centred on English interests, that would become a very difficult thing for the Westminster government to do.

Salmond’s attempt to lead Scotland to independence on a wing and a prayer is horribly reminiscent of Paterson and Law’s behaviour 300 years ago, with the idea riding way ahead of reality.

The Commonwealth Games: England should have many more medals against their name

Robert Henderson

Gratifying as the official success of the England team at the Commonwealth games –173 medals made up of 58 gold, 59 silver and 57 bronze medals – this underplays the scale of England’s dominance.

Of the 19 gold medals officially ascribed to Scotland and the five ascribed to Wales, no less were won by competitors born in England.

Scotland

Gold medallists born in England (Place of birth beside each) taking gold for Scotland are:

Dan Keating – Kettering – Gymnastics
Dan Purvis – Liverpool – Gymnastics
Sarah Addlington – Shrewsbury – Judo
Sarah Clark – South Shields – Judo
Libby Clegg – Stockport – Athletics
Chris Sherringham – Ormskirk – Judo
Hannah Miley Swindon – Swimming
Euan Burton Ascot – Judo

8 golds won

Scots born competitors taking gold for Scotland

Darren Burnett bowls
David Peacock bowls
Alex Marshall bowls
Paul Foster bowls
Neil Spiers bowls
Neil Fachie Cycling
Daniel Wallace Swimming
Ross Murdock swimming
Kimberley Renicks Judo
Louise Renwicks Judo
Josh Taylor boxing
Charlie Flynn boxing

11 golds won

The places of birth can be found at http://results.glasgow2014.com/nation/SCO/scotland.html

NB the Scots born winners include those in bowls who won playing as pairs. Hence, there are more than 19 names when the two groups are added together. The English born competitors all took individual golds.

Wales

The gold medallists born in England (Place of birth beside each) taking gold for Wales were:

Jazz Carlin Shrewsbury
Georgia Davies London
Francesca Jones Kettering
Welsh born competitors taking gold for Wales
Geraint Thomas cycling
Natalie Powell Judo

2 golds won

The places of birth can be found here : http://results.glasgow2014.com/nation/WAL/wales.html

The two Northern Ireland golds were won by Northern Irish born boxers, Michael Conlon and Paddy Barnes.

It is reasonable to assume that the use of competitors born in England by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will occur amongst those winning lesser medals or not winning medals at all. The percentage of Scots , Welsh and Northern Irish golds won by English-born competitors is 42% (11 out of 26). If this is repeated in the silver and bronze medals against the Scots, Welsh and N Irish names, that would mean 14 extra silver and 20 extra bronze for England. The English medal total overall would read:

69 gold – 73 silver – 77 bronze, a total of 219.

In addition to the skewing of the medal table by large numbers of English men and women sailing under Celtic flags, England also aids the Celtic Fringe born competitors in many sports because they are part of GB performance programmes which are largely funded by the English.

Scottish Independence – How Cameron sold England down the river with the Edinburgh Agreement

Robert Henderson

The Edinburgh Agreement was signed By David Cameron and Alex Salmon in Edinburgh on 15 October 2012.

(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence#MemorandumofUnderstanding ).

It established the legal basis for the Scottish independence referendum.

The first point to note is that Cameron went to Edinburgh. As Scotland are a supplicant which wishes to leave the Union, Cameron should have insisted that Salmond came to Westminster. By going to Edinburgh it at best created a spurious equality between UK national government and the devolved Scottish one and at worst that Salmond was controlling the negotiations. .

The gratuitous pandering to Salmond went far beyond the place of negotiation and signing. The clauses in the agreement which pander to the SNP are these:

4. The Order enables the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum that takes place at any point before the end of 2014. The date of the poll will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine and will be set out in the Referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government. The Order requires the poll for this referendum to be held on a day with no other poll provided for by legislation of the Scottish Parliament.

6. The Order enables the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum with one question on independence. The wording of the question will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine and will be set out in the Referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government, subject to the Electoral Commission’s review process, as set out in the paragraphs which follow.

9. The Referendum Bill introduced by the Scottish Government will create a franchise for the referendum. Both governments agree that all those entitled to vote in Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections should be able to vote in the referendum.

10. The Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum also set out a proposal for extending the franchise to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the referendum. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide whether to propose extending the franchise for this referendum and how that should be done. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to approve the referendum franchise, as it would be for any referendum on devolved matters.

11. The Scottish Government’s decision on what to propose to the Scottish Parliament will be informed by the analysis of responses to its consultation exercise and by practical considerations. The Order does not restrict the extension of the franchise in the case of this referendum.

25. The Referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government will provide for the spending limits in the regulated period for the independence referendum. Both governments agree that the rules and standards set out in PPERA provide the basis for setting the limits.

Cameron gave away any say in the following matters by leaving it to the Scottish parliament to decide what should be done:

1. The general referendum legislation

2. The date of the referendum

3. The referendum question

4. The franchise

5. The referendum expenditure rules

There is also a clause which may well cause difficulty should there be a vote for Scottish independence, viz:

30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding 4between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

The final sentence is the fly in the ointment. Although it is vaguely worded it could give Salmond a platform to argue for things such as a currency union.

BBC drama goes in to bat for Scottish independence

Robert Henderson

The BBC Radio 4 play Dividing the Union was a crude piece of propaganda for Scottish independence (Broadcast at 2.15pm 14 March – available on IPlayer for six days from the date of uploading this blog post http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03xgsly).

The actor playing Alex Salmond ( Greg Hemphill) sounded and behaved like Salmond, that is, he was aggressive and wilfully patronising. The actor playing David Cameron (Greg Wise) seriously failed represent Cameron’s voice and manner. He spoke with a form of received pronunciation but it did not sound like Cameron, who has a much crisper delivery and somewhat posher voice. However, that weakness in characterisation is dwarfed by the lack of dominant tone and energy in his persona. This Cameron came across as dithering and uncertain, constantly fretting that Salmond will be too clever for him in conversations with his adviser Robert (David Jackson Young). These conversations include the fictional Cameron whining to Robert that he (Robert) should not have left him alone with Salmond when the Edinburgh Agreement was agreed. All that is utterly unlike Cameron, who is naturally aggressive in debate and quick on his mental feet.

Then there is the deal they come to. The play has Cameron agreeing to a currency union, a split of the national debt by population and a division of the oil and gas revenues on a geographical basis favourable to Scotland. What does he get in return? An extension of the period in which the nuclear submarines on the Clyde can be kept there before being transferred to the rest of the UK. That is precisely the type of deal that Salmond has been angling for and saying Westminster would agree to when faced with the fact of independence. Such a deal would be grossly to England’s disadvantage.

Finally, why a play about the YES camp winning this close to the referendum? Can we expect a balancing play in which the independence vote is lost? If not, why not?

What happens if Scotland votes NO to independence?

Robert Henderson

The Scottish independence referendum is deeply flawed as a democratic process because (1) the terms of independence have not been agreed before the referendum is held so Scottish voters will be buying a pig in a poke; (2) the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allowed no say in whether Scotland should be allowed to secede from the union or, if they are to be allowed to leave, the terms on which they may secede and (3) the political circumstances of the UK if Scotland votes NO to independence have gone largely unexamined.

I have dealt with the points (1) and (2) [1]elsewhere and a great deal of public attention is being paid to what will happen if Scotland votes for independence. Consequently, I shall not further labour those matters. But point (3) does require attention because next to no attention is being paid by politicians or the mainstream media to what happens if Scotland votes to remain within the UK. The question has so far engendered little more than vague talk about DevoMax with unspecified additional powers being given to Scotland. As the vote is likely to be NO, this is a matter which needs to be publicly discussed now not after the referendum when Westminster politicians may cook up any deal they want, a deal which is likely to be, as all the other devolution deals have been, to England’s disadvantage.

The complication of the next General Election

There is a very awkward fly in the post referendum ointment: the referendum will be held in 18 September 2014 and a General Election must be held by 7 May 2015 at the latest. That raises the question of who will be making the post referendum decisions at Westminster. With a General Election so close to the referendum it is improbable that any agreement on what will happen after a NO vote could be reached before the election. The parties might produce their devolution agendas for their election manifestoes but that would be about it. Consequently, it is anybody’s guess as to which party or parties in a new coalition would be making the final decision on any further devolution of powers to put before Parliament. Equally important would be our ignorance of the size of the various parties in the Commons after the General Election, for this is an issue which is fundamental enough to make quite a few MPs vote against the party whip. A government with a small majority could easily find itself outvoted. These facts mean that all the variations of probable governments – Labour, Tory or the LibDems in coalition with either major party – and the effects of the size of the majority of the government need to be considered when judging the likely shape of devolution after a NO vote.

The moral balance after a NO Vote

On the face of it, the narrower the margin of rejection of independence the greater will be the moral bargaining power of the SNP to obtain further powers on favourable terms. However that does not automatically mean generous terms would be forthcoming, because once a vote on independence is lost the politics of the Union come into play.

To begin with it is unlikely that another vote on independence would be held for at least ten years and more probably fifteen or twenty years, even if there was growing support for it in Scotland. Westminster politicians are very short-termist and might well think the subject has been kicked into the long grass sufficiently far to forget about it. The fact that none of the major parties have shown themselves willing to take action to redress the imbalance created by the present devolutionary settlement (with England left out of the equation) suggests they may wish to restrict further devolution concessions to minor matters. However, as there is further substantial devolution of powers to Scotland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11863388) and quite possibly Wales (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/wales-in-line-for-extra-powers-after-major-review-of-assembly.1393858063) in the pipeline this may not be a serious bar to additional serious devolution.

Then there is the self-interest of the three major British parties. A strong case can be made for both the Tories and Labour not wanting serious amounts of new power given to Scotland. The Tories have ideological reasons; Labour and the LibDems the reason of crude numbers in the Commons.

The Tories are still at heart a Unionist party and want to retain the Union as a matter of policy. Substantial new powers would weaken the Union and new powers given now would inevitably be deemed insufficient in the future, probably in the near future, because devolution is a form of appeasement and the appeased always come back for more. Moreover, every increase in devolved powers acts in effect as preparation for independence. Eventually Scotland would reach the stage where independence would not seem such a frightening thing simply because they were doing so much themselves.

As for Labour and the LibDems, they have a direct vested interest. Greatly increased powers for Scotland would make it next to impossible to justify the present Scottish representation in the House of Commons. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have a substantial reliance on Scottish MPs at Westminster. Thus both parties would have a strong incentive to deny Scotland substantial new powers to ensure that Scottish MPs are not severely reduced.

All three major parties have a further reason: if substantial new powers were granted to Scotland it would be next to impossible to deny them to Wales and Northern Ireland and make the denial of an English Parliament ever more outlandish.

If the NO vote was overwhelming, on the face of it there would be no great pressure to devolve substantial new powers. An SNP which had failed to deliver either independence or DevoMax might be seen to have shot its bolt if it cannot deliver on its promises beyond a few superficial changes. At best the SNP would be severely diminished and at worst would so thoroughly discredited that they would be finished as a serious political force, doubtless remaining as an entity but restricted to an ever smaller and shriller cabal of true believers.

But even if the referendum was lost by an overwhelming vote it is unlikely that the demands for further devolved powers would diminish, especially from Scotland. As mentioned above further powers are already on the horizon. Nor would the demands for even more powers than those already proposed necessarily go unsatisfied. Devolution has already created well established regional political establishments and the presence of nationalist MPs in the Commons not only provides a permanent platform for further demands, but the existence of cabinet ministers to represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and Commons committees to promote their national interests means that there are powerful administrative mechanisms to promote and develop further devolutionary powers. Unionist MPs may also continue the fatal game (from their point of view) of imagining that giving away more and more power is the way to maintain the Union. Nor should the House of Lords be overlooked because it provides a very useful platform for both advocating further devolution and of influencing the Commons through committees of both houses and voting down and amending legislation

There is also the possibility of nationalist MPs wielding disproportionate influence if there is a hung Parliament and their votes are needed to either help form a coalition or to support a minority government on an ad hoc basis.

The alternatives to an English Parliament

But regardless of whether or not a NO vote was won narrowly or by a large majority, the elephant in the room is an English Parliament. It might be thought that if DevoMax becomes a reality, an English Parliament will be seen as a political necessity by all. That is far too sanguine.

There would be politicians who would try to refloat the idea of the Balkanisation of England through regional English assemblies – an attempt to revivify the project was made in 2012 by Labour MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16932030). But after the Blair government’s attempt to introduce regional assemblies met with a humiliating rejection (78% voted no) in the area deemed to have the strongest regional identity in England, the North East (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/nov/05/regionalgovernment.politics), it is an idea unlikely to fly.

There would also be the practical problem of producing regional devolution throughout England. If each region had a referendum to say whether or not they wanted a regional assembly, it is wildly improbable that there would be a vote for assemblies in every referendum. Indeed the referenda might well result in a universal rejection of such representation The only way all of England could be devolved to regional assemblies would be by Parliamentary action to impose it on England. That would be very unlikely to gain the support of a House of Commons, not least because any government likely to propose such devolution – it would have to be a Labour government or a Labour/LibDem coalition – would almost certainly have to rely heavily on MPs from non-English seats to pass such a measure because of the heavy Labour and LibDem reliance on MPs from the Celtic Fringe (it is rare for a Labour government with majority of landslide proportions to even hold a bare majority of English seats). To force such a change on England through the votes of non-English MPs should be politically impossible.

If there was a Tory majority government or a Tory\LibDem coalition , that would make a majority for the imposition of regional assemblies without referenda very unlikely because the Tory Party has officially opposed regional assemblies. In 2004, the Shadow Minister for the Regions Bernard Jenkin pledged that if Labour set up regional assemblies the Tories would ”l end Labour’s phoney regional agenda. Every power that Labour gives to regional assemblies, we’ll give back to local councils.” (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/07/conservatives2004.conservatives2). Perhaps more importantly many Tory MPs are strongly opposed to regional assemblies on principle so even if the Party leadership wanted to change the policy it is unlikely they would be able to do so. It is also worth noting that even in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats the Tories have managed to abolish unelected the Regional Development Agencies which could have been used as the skeleton for elected regional assemblies and the administration arising from them. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/mar/31/localgovernment-regeneration-gordon-marsden-regional-development-agencies-leps).

The other alternative which might be tried as an excuse to deny England a Parliament would be English votes on English laws. This would be difficult to implement because of the difficulty of deciding what was and was not legislation which affected England only.

It might be possible to do it simply by saying that any policy area devolved to the Scottish Parliament (which has the broadest devolution power) would also be treated as an English-only area of legislation. However, to do that would require the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies to have the same powers, because a good deal of the legislation currently passed at Westminster covers Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England. This happens because Wales and Northern Ireland those countries have much less devolved power than Scotland. Whether Wales and Northern Ireland would be competent to receive such extra powers or would want them is debatable at best. It is worth noting that a recent BBC Cymru Wales poll found that 23% of Welsh voters wanted to abolish the Welsh assembly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26378274).

That is the position at present. But if Scotland was to have DEVOMAX the other home countries would have to be given the same enhanced devolved powers otherwise we would be back to a variable geometry devolution. That would greatly increase the importance of the competence and desire questions for Wales and Northern Ireland.

Apart from the difficulty of deciding what was an English-only affecting law, to exclude MPs from non-English seats from participating in English only matters would be to remove them from much of the discussion and decision making of the House of Commons. That would be so even with the current level of devolution enjoyed by Scotland. With DEVOMAX the position could become absurd because MPs for non-English seats could easily end up being restricted to not much more than the classic federal issues of foreign policy, diplomacy, defence and management of the currency. At that point the taxpayer might well ask what are we paying Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs for?

There would be a further complication with the House of Lords. At the moment England uniquely amongst the four home countries has all its domestic legislation subject to Lords scrutiny and approval. That is bad enough as things stand, but if DEVOMAX was granted to Scotland but not England the problem would be greatly magnified. Conversely, if DEVOMAX was granted to all the home countries, then the Lords would become to a large extent redundant because most of the legislation it now deals with would be removed from it.

All in all it is difficult to see how anyone could seriously put forward English votes for English laws as an answer to the injustice England currently experiences with a substantial part of their laws being decided in part by MPs from outside of England while English MPs have no say about the legislation involved in the areas of devolved powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

If the regional assemblies and English votes for English laws are ruled out then an English Parliament is the only alternative to the increasingly unfair dichotomy between the governance of England and the rest of the UK. The neatest solution would be to go for a true federal solution. Instead of having separate members elected to the Commons and national assemblies, a member should be elected to serve in both the Commons (when non-devolved matters are dealt with) and their national assembly to deal with devolved matters. The Commons should also serve as the English national Parliament with of course only English MPs sitting. This would prevent any great additional expense from either a new English Parliament or additional politicians. Indeed, there would be fewer with the ending of separate members for the Celtic Fringe national assemblies and the House of Commons.

Whether the Lords needs to be retained is debatable. I do not like single chamber parliaments because they have no brake on them, but it is not obvious what function the Lords would have once and English Parliament was up and running. Perhaps the Lords (or some other second chamber) could deal just with non-devolved powers. That would at least place England on an equal basis with the other home countries with all devolved issues being subject to a single chamber national parliament. If the UK had a written constitution, something sorely needed, the Lords could also act as a form of Grand Jury to decide constitutional questions.

The one thing which is absolutely clear is that the practical need and moral justification for an English Parliament, which is already great, would be substantially advanced by a vote against Scottish independence and an increase in devolved power to Scotland.

[1] http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/the-english-voice-on-scottish-independence-must-be-heard/ and

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/the-wages-of-scottish-independence-england-wales-and-northern-ireland-must-be-heard/

Roger Scruton on the injustice done to England by devolution

Robert Henderson

Below are extracts from a talk by the philosopher Roger Scruton on the position of England within the UK since devolution . They were made one BBC Radio 4 (21 Feb 14) in their Point of View series.

I have omitted the parts of Scruton’s talk which concern the historical and economic background because they are superficial , frequently wrong and often embarrassingly sentimental – the final quote I offer gives a good idea of what has been omitted.

Where Scruton is on solid ground is his description of the situation England finds itself in now. That is what the quotes I offer deal with. It is also very useful to have someone like Scruton with something of a media profile speaking out on the subject of England’s current disadvantaged position.

Roger Scruton: United We Fall: Point of View http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pov extracts

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 into 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 English tend to blame the migration which threatens 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 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 the Scottish parliament gave a new identity to the Scots.

The effect of the Scottish Parliament, however, was not only to ensure the Scots governed 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 at 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 which had grown in that country.

Elections to the Scottish Parliament show that the Scots have shifted their allegiance from the Labour Party to the SNP, but they still want the English to be governed by the Labour Party. Hence, they vote to place Labour politicians, whom 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 Parliaments sent to Westminster by the Scots. The process that brought this about was one in 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 Alec 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 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?

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 two countries. It was thanks to independence that 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 the English who live side by side.

Full text of Scruton’s talk at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26173128

What the British people want from their politicians … and what they get

Robert Henderson

What do our politicians think of the electorate: precious little. All the major mainstream parties either ignore or cynically misrepresent the issues which are most important to the British – immigration, our relationship with the EU, the English democratic deficit, foreign adventures , the suppression of free speech and the precarious state of the economy. . These issues are not addressed honestly because they either clash with the prevailing internationalist agenda or because to address them honestly would mean admitting how much sovereignty had been given away to the EU and through other treaties.

This antidemocratic failure to engage in honest politics is an established trait. The wilful removal from mainstream politics of vitally important issues has been developing for more than half a century. The upshot is that the British want their politics to be about something which is not currently on offer from any party with a chance of forming a government. The British public broadly seek what these days counts as rightist action when it comes to matters such as preserving nationhood, immigration, race and political correctness, but traditional leftist policies on items such as social welfare, the NHS and the economy (has anyone ever met someone in favour of free markets and free trade who has actually lost his job because of them?).

The electorate’s difficulty is not simply their inability to find a single party to fulfil all or even most of their political desires. Even on a single issue basis, the electorate frequently cannot find a party offering what they want because all the mainstream parties now carol from the same internationalist, globalist, supranational, pro-EU, pc songsheet. The electorate finds they may have any economic programme provided it is laissez faire globalism, any relationship with the EU provided it is membership, any foreign policy provided it is internationalist and continuing public services only if they increasingly include private capital and provision. The only difference between the major parties is one of nuance.

Nowhere is this political uniformity seen more obviously than in the Labour and Tory approaches to immigration. Labour has adopted a literally mad policy of “no obvious limit to immigration”. The Tories claim to be “tough” on immigration, but then agree to accept as legal immigrants more than 100,000 incomers a year from outside the EU plus any number of migrants from within the EU (350 million have the right to settle here). There is a difference, but it is simply less or more of the same. Worse, in practice there would probably be no meaningful difference to the numbers coming whoever is in power. The truth is that while we remain part of the EU and tied by international treaties on asylum and human rights, nothing meaningful can be done for purely practical reasons. But even if something could be done, for which serious party could the person who wants no further mass immigration vote? None.

A manifesto to satisfy the public

All of this set me thinking: what manifesto would appeal to most electors? I suggest this political agenda for the What the People Want Party:

We promise:

1. To always put Britain’s interests first. This will entail the adoption of an unaggressive nationalist ethic in place of the currently dominant internationalist ideology.

2. The reinstatement of British sovereignty by withdrawal from the EU and the repudiation of all treaties which circumscribe the primacy of Parliament.

3. That future treaties will only come into force when voted for by a majority in both Houses of Parliament and accepted in a referendum . Any treaty should be subject to repudiation following Parliament passing a motion that repudiation should take place and that motion being ratified by a referendum. Treaties could also be repudiated by a citizen initiated referendum (see 29).

4. A reduction in the power of the government in general and the Prime Minister in particular and an increase in the power of Parliament. This will be achieved by abolishing the Royal Prerogative, outlawing the party whip and removing the vast powers of patronage available to a government.

5. That the country will only go to war on a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

6. An end to mass immigration by any means, including asylum, work permits and family reunion.

7. An end to all officially-sponsored political correctness.

8. The promotion of British history and culture in our schools and by all publicly-funded bodies.

9. The repeal of all laws which give by intent or practice a privileged position to any group which is less than the entire population of the country, for example the Race Relations Act..

10. The repeal of all laws which attempt to interfere with the personal life and responsibility of the individual. Citizens will not be instructed what to eat, how to exercise, not to smoke or drink or be banned from pursuits such as fox-hunting which harm no one else.

11. A formal recognition that a British citizen has rights and obligations not available to the foreigner, for example, the benefits of the welfare state will be made available only to born and bred Britons.

12. Policing which is directed towards three ends: maintaining order, catching criminals and providing support and aid to the public in moments of threat or distress. The police will leave their cars and helicopters and return to the beat and there will be an assumption that the interests and safety of the public come before the interests and safety of police officers.

13. A justice system which guards the interests of the accused by protecting essential rights of the defendant such as jury trial and the right to silence, whilst preventing cases collapsing through technical procedural errors.

14. Prison sentences that are served in full, that is, the end of remission and other forms of early release. Misbehaviour in prison will be punished by extending the sentence.

15. An absolute right to self-defence when attacked. The public will be encouraged to defend themselves and their property.

16. A general economic policy which steers a middle way between protectionism and free trade, with protection given to vital and strategically important industries such as agriculture, energy, and steel and free trade only in those things which are not necessities.

17. A repudiation of further privatisation for its own sake and a commitment to the direct public provision of all essential services such as medical treatment. We recognise that the electorate overwhelmingly want the NHS, decent state pensions, good state funded education for their children and state intervention where necessary to ensure the necessities of life. This promise is made to both reassure the public of continued future provision and to ensure that the extent of any public spending is unambiguous, something which is not the case where indirect funding channels such as PFI are used.

18. The re-nationalisation of the railways, the energy companies, the water companies and any exercise of the state’s authority such as privately run prisons which have been placed in private hands.

19. An education system which ensures that every child leaves school with at least a firm grasp of the three Rs and a school exam system which is based solely on a final exam. This will remove the opportunity to cheat by pupils and teachers. The standards of the exams will be based on those of the 1960s which is the last time British school exams were uncontaminated by continuous assessment, multiple choice questions and science exams included practicals as a matter of course. .

20. To restore credibility to our university system. The taxpayer will fund scholarships for 20 per cent of school-leavers. These will pay for all fees and provide a grant sufficient to live on during term time. Any one not in receipt of a scholarship will have to pay the full fees and support themselves or take a degree in their spare time. The scholarships will be concentrated on the best universities. The other universities will be closed. This will ensure that the cost is no more than the current funding and the remaining universities can be adequately funded.

21. A clear distinction in our policies between the functions of the state and the functions of private business, charities and other non-governmental bodies. The state will provide necessary public services, business will be allowed to concentrate on their trade and not be asked to be an arm of government and charities will be entirely independent bodies which will no longer receive public money.

22. A commitment to putting the family first. This will include policies which recognise that the best childcare is that given by the parents and that parents must be allowed to exercise discipline over their children. These will be given force by a law making clear that parents have an absolute right to the custody of and authority over their children, unless the parents can be shown to be engaging in serious criminal acts against their children.

23. Marriage to be encouraged by generous tax breaks and enhanced child allowances for children born in wedlock.

24. Defence forces designed solely to defend Britain and not the New World Order.

25. A Parliament for England to square the Devolution circle. The English comprise around 80 per cent of the population of the UK, yet they alone of all the historic peoples are Britain are denied the right to govern themselves. This is both unreasonable and politically unsustainable in the long-run.

26. A reduction to the English level of Treasury funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will save approximately £17 billion pa because the Celts receive overall approximately £1,600 per head per annum more than the English.

27. An end to Foreign Aid. This will save approximately £11 billion.

28. A written constitution to ensure that future governments cannot abuse their power. This will be predicated on (1) the fact that we are a free people, (2) the belief that in a free and democratic society the individual can be trusted to take responsibility for his or her actions and to behave responsibly and (3) that politicians are the servants not the masters of those who elect them. It will guarantee those things necessary to a free society, including an absolute right to free expression, jury trial for any offence carrying a sentence of more than one year, place citizens in a privileged position over foreigners and set the interests and safety of the country and its citizens above the interests and safety of any other country or people.

29. Citizen initiated referenda shall be held when ten per cent of the population have signed a petition asking for a referendum.

Those are the things which I think most of the electorate could embrace, at least in large part. There are also other issues which the public might well be brought to support if there was proper public debate and a serious political party supporting them such as the ownership and bearing of weapons and the legalisation of drugs.

The positive thing about such an agenda is that either Labour or the Tories could comfortably support it within the context of their history.

Until Blair perverted its purpose, the Labour Party had been in practice (and often in theory – think Ernie Bevin), staunchly nationalist, not least because the unions were staunchly protective of their members’ interests and resistant to both mass immigration (because it reduced wages) and free trade (because it exported jobs and reduced wages).

For the Tories, the Thatcherite philosophy is as much an aberration as the Blairite de-socialisation of Labour. The true Tory creed in a representative democracy is that of the one nation nationalist. It cannot be repeated too often that the free market internationalist creed is the antithesis of conservatism.

The manifesto described above would not appeal in every respect to ever member of the “disenfranchised majority”. But its general political slant would be palatable to that majority and there would be sufficient within the detail to allow any individual who is currently disenchanted with politics to feel that there were a decent number of important policies for which he or she could happily vote. That is the best any voter can expect in a representative democracy. People could again believe that voting might actually change things.

SNP 2013 XMAS INDEPENDENCE NOVELTIES

Make you own currency kit

Allows you to name your currency, design your own coins and banknotes, create coins (3D printer included) and banknotes and set up a central piggy bank. Warning: the money will have the same value as that used in the game monopoly. Not to be confused with real life.

IndependenceWorld

Create your own independent Scotland virtual world. The beauty of the programme is that you can make it as improbable as you want and it will still seem plausible if you are an SNP supporter. Lose yourself in pure fantasy.

DevoMaxWorld

A computer game in which players attempt to build an ever more fantastical world in which Scotland is granted wildly improbable privileges to be paid for by England whilst Scotland remains safe within the UK. For the less adventurous player.

Islands

A game for two people. It is played on a magnetic board representing the British Isles. Players are called UK and Scotland The idea is for the player designated Scotland to keep their islands and their oil attached to the Scottish mainland while the player designated UK tries to make them break away and join the UK .

The game proceeds by the use of a special pack of cards with messages such as UK offers to patrol Orkney waters gain 10 watts and Scotland attempts to occupy the Island of Lewis lose 50 watts. The magnetism comes from electro magnets which each player must increase or decrease in power as their cards dictate. The islands move on the board from their current position towards the UK or remain as they are depending on the play of the cards. Trials of game show a remarkably high incidence of the Islands and their oil ending up in UK hands.

My little Alec Salmon

Lifelike figure in the form of the SNP leader. Fully animatronic. Will have you in fits of laughter as it struts up and down and makes ever more ridiculous claims. Also programmed to do impersonations of Will Fyffe, Harry Lauder, Andy Stewart and other Scottish favourites.

Government Independence Contract Monopoly

Played on a board marked out with contracts offered by the UK government. Players move by the use of a dice and there is community chest with cards carrying instructions such as UK takes all defence contracts away from Scotland. Players unsuccessfully attempt to collect 200 million pounds of English taxpayers’ money every time they pass GO or at any other time. Warning: in trial uses of the game no contract has ever been awarded to Scotland.

Independence Sweepstake Game

Before independence Players make their estimates of what the following will be after independence

– The average oil revenue in the first five years of after independence

– The number of English taxpayer funded jobs in Scotland which will be lost

– The cost of setting up a Scottish civil service

– The cost of setting up Scottish defence forces

– The size of the Scottish share of the UK national debt in 2016

– The size of the Scottish share of the UK public service pensions provision in 2016

In the event of a vote for independence, the estimates are compared with the actuality after five years of independence. If it happens, be amazed at the difference between the sweepstake figures (hilariously optimistic) and reality.

SNP Sovereign Wealth Fund Moneybox

Purely decorative. The box is designed without any money cache because none will be needed. Frightening realistic.

English Subsidy Moneybox

A perennial favourite but with a difference. The money box remains open after independence but Scots find that the only money they will get from it will be that which they put in themselves. Hours of innocent fun watching the owner’s expression change from smug expectation to utter dismay.

Warships

A board game for two players where one tries to keep UK warship building in Scotland after independence and the other refuses to award the contracts to Scotland.

Call my SNP bluff

Three players recite what is claimed to be SNP policy while the other players decide which is the real SNP policy amongst the three. Warning: players must make sure the two false policies amongst the three are outlandishly improbable otherwise it will be all too easy to spot the real SNP policy.

Conversational Gaelic DVD

Learn the language of your ancestors and find yourself part of a community of dozens of fellow speakers of our glorious tongue. Warning: due to a lack of Gaelic words for items and ideas created after 1700, speakers may find the range of conversation extremely limited.

Diplomacy

Played on a similar board to monopoly with similar rules. The idea is for players to establish Scottish embassies in all the world’s capitals after independence. Cry with laughter as Scotland rents a bedsitter in Moscow and a Studio Flat in Washington.

EU Jigsaw

Giant jigsaw of the European Union. Players try to complete the jigsaw so that it includes an independent Scotland. Warning: the parts representing Scotland may not fit.

Paint your own Saltire

Paint a glorious Saltire by numbers. Suitable for SNP supporters of all ages.

Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! While the SNP lasts

The Scottish Independence Referendum – unanswered questions

Robert Henderson

NB UK2 stands for the UK containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The vote on Scottish independence is in 2014. The next UK general election is scheduled for 2015. The date for Scotland to leave the Union is 2016. Assuming Scotland votes for independence these unanswered questions need addressing:

1. When will existing MPs sitting in Scottish seats be expelled from the Commons? Will they be allowed to continue sitting in the Commons until the 2015 general election?

2. Will Scottish Westminster seats which fall vacant before the Independence referendum be filled in the normal way with a bye-election?

3. What will happen to Scottish Westminster seats which fall vacant after a vote in 2014 to leave the Union but before the 2016 formal departure date? Will there be a bye-election to fill the seat until the formal departure or will the seat be left vacant?

4. What will happen to peers who have hereditary Scottish titles or are Scottish life peers?

Unless they are excluded from the Lords they would continue to have a say in UK2’s politics after Scottish independence. The cleanest solution would be to insist on peers residing in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and make any peer wishing to sit in the Lords divest themselves of any formal nationality other than British. That would mean peers were in a different position to the rest of the population with regard to legal nationality, including MPs, who can at present hold more than one nationality. The answer would be to make illegal the holding of anything other than British nationality by anyone sitting in the Lords or Commons .

5. What will happen to those holding British passports who find themselves in an independent Scotland or wish to have Scottish nationality whilst living elsewhere? This would be a good time to deny dual nationality to British citizens generally.

6. What will be the position of Scotland and the rest of the UK (UK2) respectively with regard to the EU? There is no precedent for an EU member splitting into separate sovereign states and the component parts of the original EU state being taking back into the EU. Both logically and legally it is difficult to see how the EU could allow either or both of Scotland and UK2 back in without a further Treaty agreed by the other 27 states. Several of those states would require referenda before such a Treaty could be approved.

7. What if Scotland or UK2 were refused admission to the EU or decided they did not want to join the EU? If one country was outside the EU it would have to apply the barriers to trade that the EU states apply generally to those outside the European Economic Area (EEA)

8. What would happen to immigration between UK2 and Scotland? The danger is of Scotland allowing large numbers of people to enter Scotland knowing that these people would almost all head straight for England. Whether or not Scotland was a member of the EU, there would have to be strict immigration controls on those coming from outside the EEA and if either Scotland or UK2 was outside the EU, there would be a strong case for imposing border controls.

9.What currency will Scotland use? The position with the Pound Sterling is beautifully simple: Scotland was allowed to use the English currency after they signed the Treaty of Union in 1707, having discarded their Scottish Pound, which was only worth a few English shillings. If they leave the Union they break the Treaty of Union and consequently no longer have any legal right to use the Pound. It would be a disaster for England if Scotland was allowed to use the Pound because in practice England would be the lender of last resort for Scottish financial institutions through the Bank of England and even without a financial catastrophe Scottish fiscal recklessness could generally weaken the Pound. Scotland should have to choose between the Euro or a new Scottish currency. If Scotland has to reapply for EU membership she would probably be forced to take the Euro as all new state are obligated to do so.

10. How will the oil and gas revenues be divided? Even if this was left simply to a matter of what is in whose territorial waters Scotland could get much less than they estimate (around 90%+) if the territorial waters are determined by lines drawn at the angle of the coast at the English/Scottish border. Moreover, a good deal of the oil is around the Scottish islands, who have been making noises about not wishing to be part of an independent Scotland. Shale oil and gas also comes into the picture. Most of the likely UK shale deposits are in England. It would be a grand irony if Scotland cut herself off from a share of the revenues from these by opting for independence.

11. From what date will Scotland’s proportionate share of the UK national debt be calculated? It would be significantly lower if calculated at the time of the 2014 referendum rather than the formal date of leaving in 2016.

12. How will Scotland finance the servicing of her proportionate share of the UK national debt?

If she retains the Pound this could be done simply by paying to the British Treasury the sum needed to service it. Scotland would be able to reduce the servicing charge by making payments to the British Treasury to reduce the debt.

If Scotland does not retain the Pound she would either have to join the Euro or establish a new Scottish currency. Either could be a very dodgy proposition. To safeguard UK2’s interests, Scotland should be forced to raise the money, if she can, through issuing her own bonds, converting these into a safe currency and then passing the money to UK2. Alternatively she could buy safe currency and pass that to UK2.

13. Since the Union in 1707, Scotland has taken far more from the Westminster Treasury than she has raised in tax. What payment is Scotland to make to the rest of the UK to repay this subsidy from the rest of the UK (in effect from England)?

14. What will happen to the state holdings in the banks RBS and Lloyds? At the moment these are both net liabilities not assets because the share value of both means the £45 billion put into them by the UK taxpayer could not be recouped if the shares were sold.

15. How are the assets of the UK to be divided between Scotland and UK2? For the material assets which are physically fixed the only practical way would be for Scotland to retain what is in Scotland and UK2 to retain what is in UK2. The moveable assets such as military ones could be divided, but there would be little point in giving Scotland equipment they could not afford to use, for example, the larger surface ships or submarines. The Trident deterrent must be removed to an English base together with any other ships allocated to UK2 which are currently based in Scotland and warship building retained in Portsmouth. The only substantial overseas assets would be the diplomatic operations in embassies and consulates. However, these have been scaled back over the past thirty years. An agreement would probably have to be made whereby the UK2 kept the properties and offset some of the Scottish share of the UK national debt against their notional share.

I6. If an independent Scotland cannot or will not maintain armed forces equivalent to those now stationed in Scotland, what will happen to the men and equipment? Will the British Army absorb them?

17. There are many public sector jobs in Scotland which service the rest of the UK (http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/blog/2012/aug/14/unified-scottish-civil-service-not-that-simple). How long after the vote for independence will they be removed to the part of the UK which they actually serve?

18. Who will be responsible for paying the pensions of civil servants working in Scotland but servicing another part of the UK?

19. What proportion of the overall UK public sector pension entitlement at the time of independence will Scotland be responsible for? This pension entitlement will include those paid to the armed forces, British Eurocrats and the diplomatic service.

20. At what date will the accumulated public sector pensions of the UK be calculated? Immediately after the vote for independence, the date of formal independence or what? The later the date the larger the Scottish liability.

21. Will those with Scottish nationality have to have work permits to work in UK2?

22. What will happen to the BBC? At the moment Scotland gets a very good deal because she pays in proportion to her population, but gets the benefit of the entire BBC output, the vast majority of which is paid for by English TV licence payers. There is no reason why an independent Scotland should continue to do so. They should form their own public service broadcaster (if that is what they want) and purchase BBC programmes on the same basis as any other foreign country.

The terms on which Scotland could secede from the Union should be agreed before any Scottish vote on independence. Agreement to the terms should be through a referendum of voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only if accepted by those voters should the independence question be put to the Scottish electorate. That question should be Do you wish to have independence on the terms offered by the rest of UK?

The future of England

Meeting arranged by the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP)

House of Lords 20^th November

Speakers

Frank Field Labour MP

Lord Maclennan (Lib Dem)

Professor Wyn Jones ( Professor of Welsh Politics, Cardiff U)

Eddie Bone CEP

There were around 100 people attending including a sprinkling of young faces which is always encouraging. The audience was also pretty hostile to any suggestion that England should not have a Parliament or be Balkanised with regional assemblies. This type of audience reaction has been growing in meetings I have attended over the past couple years which have dealt with the EU, immigration and England’s place in the Union. I would suggest it is indicative of a growing anger and desperation amongst the native population to what they rightly see as the selling out of their country one way or another. People have had enough of what in any other time would have been given its true name: treason.

Frank Field MP on the need for an English Parliament

Field began by pointing out that he had been against devolution in 1998 (when he voted against it) because he could see that it was a flawed settlement that was on offer which would inevitably lead to future conflict. The chief flaw in the settlement was the absence of England within the devolutionary plan.

To his credit Field argued for an English Parliament despite the fact that his Party derives great advantage from having many Scottish and Welsh MPs sitting in the Commons and, consequently, Labour would struggle to form a majority in the Commons if either the Union dissolved or it remained intact but with ever more powers being given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, even as things stand it is difficult for Labour to get a majority of English seats. His reasoning was this, if Labour does not embrace the cause of an English Parliament the increasing dissatisfaction felt by the English would erode Labour’s electoral base, because sooner or later those in control of the Tory Party would recognise that it is de facto the English party and successfully appeal to the English . This would radically undermine present Party loyalties. Because of this Field saw the only hope for Labour in the long term was for the Party to embrace the cause of an English Parliament and accept that it was desirable for the English to be able to assert their identity.

Field rejected regional assemblies for England because it was clear the English do not want them and would divide the country with different regions competing against one another. Instead he favoured a federal system for the four home countries with foreign policy, defence and finance being federal matters dealt with in a federal parliament and the rest left to the four national parliaments.

I would support this structure (I would even go so far as to invite the Republic of Ireland to join) , but some further matters would need to be decided at the federal level most especially immigration policy. There would also be the problem of welfare benefits, NHS provision and educational facilities if each home country funded its expenditure from taxes it raised within its borders. If there were significant differences in benefit levels in the four home countries, eligibility for the benefits would need to be decided at federal level because otherwise people would flock from the lower benefit level countries to the higher benefit level countries. Nonetheless, a federal government would deal with only a minute part of what Westminster deals with now.

Field’s explanation for the failure of the English in the past to display national identity strongly is the loss of Empire (he seemed to be unaware that the English never had any shyness about doing so at the height of Britain’s imperial power). He argued that while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used the occasion to carve out a new national rather than imperial identity for themselves, England did not because her people went on in the imperial mindset because they could not face the loss of world importance.

Frankly, I think this is unsustainable. I was born in 1947 and I have never encountered anyone outside a political group or meeting where any lament for the loss of Empire was heard. The much more likely explanations are that the English being the dominant nationality in the UK never felt to the need to bumptiously press their nationhood. Then came Post War mass immigration with the vast majority immigrants ending up in England. The British elite who permitted the immigration saw the danger that this could and probably would lead to English nationalism being hitched to anti-immigrant feeling and set about ruthlessly suppressing it by the law and the support of the mainstream media. English nationalist became shorthand for racist. But devolution has made it increasingly difficult for them to censor the subjects of England’s place in the Union and with that debate comes the wider one of immigration.

Lord Maclennan (Lib Dem) A Constitutional Convention for England

Maclennan described himself as a man of many allegiances saying he was a Glaswegian (he speaks with an RP accent and anyone would take him for English), a Scot, a Briton, a European and God help us a citizen of the world. Just in case the audience had not got where he was coming from, Maclennan added that he was very pro-EU.

He is in favour of an English Constitutional Convention being but there is a good deal of fudge in it. Maclennan says he wants it have popular input to prevent it being a body which simply hands down its ideas from on high. Rather curiously he thinks that popular involvement means that it should not be time limited. This lack of a time limit could be a device to allow the Convention to be manipulated by those controlling it by choosing the time most favourable to their interests for any final proposals to be made. At worst the process could even be deliberately stretched out until a government favourable to the wishes of those controlling the convention was elected. Moreover, unless the Convention was elected by the general population it is a little difficult to see how popular opinion could override the wishes of those making the final recommendations. It would not even be a question of saying the Constitutional Convention’s recommendations should be put to a referendum, because the electors would still be unable to control what the question was and what the proposals were. Those two things would go a long way to determining the outcome of any referendum.

Maclennan raised the spectre of regional assemblies by speaking warmly about them, something which produced considerable dissent amongst the audience, with people shouting out their disapproval. He tried to justify them by making a comparison between Bismarkean Germany and a UK where England had a parliament to look after her affairs. The newly unified Germany in 1870 was dominated by Prussia and Maclennan said he feared the same would happen if England had her own parliament. This was a poor analogy because the newly unified Germany had two substantial states – Bavaria and Saxony – as well as Prussia while the UK has only one large state, England. Hence, England dominates the UK naturally through her vastly larger population whereas Prussia did so by her political and military standing, the Kaiser being a Prussian. Because England is naturally dominant it will always be so. It is also insulting to the English to suggest that her Parliament or government would abuse their dominant position to the disadvantage of the other home countries.

To justify regional assemblies in a slightly less obviously Anglophobic way, Maclennan introduced the EU concept of subsidiary and trotted out the EU line of “taking decisions at the level at which they could be best implanted”.

In short, Maclennan peddled the Balkanisation of England, just as the last Labour government had done.

Professor Wyn Jones ( Professor of Welsh Politics, Cardiff U) The data on the English

Jones is Welsh. However, that did not prevent him providing a good deal of useful data to knock on the head the claims of the Anglophobes that England is too diverse for Parliament for the entire country to meet the aspirations of devolution or that the English are content with the present constitutional settlement. He drew his data primarily from two papers he had been involved with published by Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR): The dog that finally barked (http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/8542/the-dog-that-finally-barked-england-as-an-emerging-political-community) and England and its two Unions. (http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11003/england-and-its-two-unions-the-anatomy-of-a-nation-and-its-discontents).

Jones made these points from the research:

1. With exception of London, there are no significant differences by English region of the English attitude towards both seeing themselves as English and their attitude towards the devolutional disadvantage England labours under. In London the presence of large numbers of ethnic and racial minorities makes the attitudes towards devolution and how people see themselves in terms of their nationality less pronouncedly English. However, this is simply a reflection of the attitude of ethnic and racial minorities throughout England where there is a strong tendency to describe themselves as British rather than English.

2. The English are discontented with the constitutional settlement and are growing ever more so: the more English you feel, the more discontented you are.

3. There is a strong correlation between feeling you are English, Euroscepticism and the desire for England to have a Parliament or independence.

4 IPPR research which offers the people being questioned a series of political policy areas to rank in order of importance finds the EU at number one and England’s devolution predicament at number two.

5. The English overwhelmingly do not want regional assemblies. Fewer than 1 in 15 are in favour.

6. In the IPPR research there was a dead heat between those who want an English Parliament and those who want English votes for English laws. This division would almost certainly vanish if the choice was put to a referendum and the matter discussed honestly in the mainstream media, in particular discussion of the severe problems of definition when it comes to deciding what constitutes and English law. Moreover, once it became a matter of public debate with politicians and the media making the case for a Parliament , the public would begin to ask why should England not have what the other home nations have? However, I suspect that if a government simply announced English votes for English laws it would probably dampen English discontent in the short term.

7. English nation feeling is becoming politicised.

8. There is only a weak demand for English independence – 15% according to the IPPR research.

I take issue with the Professor on one major point. Jones, claimed that what he called political Englishness is a recent growth and this explains why there has been so little public dissent from the English following devolution.

The reasons I disagree are very simple. First, there was no English politician let alone Party with substantial representation in the Commons who would voice English anger at what has happened, while the mainstream media has been very reluctant to give the subject any space. To that censorship can be added the gross intimidation offered both by the state in the form of ever greater legal restrictions on what may be said in public, the disgusting eagerness of the police to harass any attempt to provide public demonstrations of English national feeling, the complicity of the media who conduct hue and cries after anyone deemed to be non-pc and large employers, particularly those in the public sector, who routinely sack or demote people “convicted” of pc “crimes”.

If a public voice is denied and the power of the state used to intimidate people it is scarce to be wondered at that no public campaign for an English Parliament has entered the political mainstream.

Eddie Bone CEP

Bone began by pointing out that 32 million people in the last census described themselves as English. He followed this by asserting that people were no longer demonised for being English. (I took issue with this strongly– see under questions from the audience).

Bone then turned his guns on the IPPR (and by implication Jones) for being behind the curve, of concentrating on what Englishness is rather than discussing the governance of England.

On the question of English independence, Bone said that the idea that there was little support as yet did not agree with his personal experience whilst working for the CEP. He believes it is a strong trend and getting stronger.

Bone dwelt on the dismal fact that there is not major British political party producing policy for England. Nor are there regional parts of the major party which are devoted to England, no English Tory Party , no English Labour Party as there have long been in Wales and Scotland.

For Bone an English constitutional convention is wanted before the Scottish referendum on independence is held to both allow policy for England to be made and demonstrate to the Scots what independence would mean.

He described the Blair devolution settlement as stupid and lamented the fact that the cabinet papers relating to the cabinet meeting where the decision on devolution was agreed have not been made public despite FOI requests.

Bone derided regional assemblies as a tool for divide and rule and believed that piece of elite mischief at least was over and done with for ever.

Questions from the audience

The questions from the audience (not that many) centred around particular issues such as the recent sacrificing of warship building capacity in Plymouth in favour of Glasgow to curry favour with the Scots and considerable hostility to any suggestion that England should be Balkanised with regional assemblies. There was also a certain politically correct concern with whom can be considered English following the mass post-war immigration.

Lord Stoddart, who was there simply as a member of audience, said that he had recently put down a question asking whether the government had any plans for an English parliament to which the answer had been a curt no.

The Lib Dem MP for North Cornwall Dan Rogerson raised the question of Cornish separatism claiming that the Cornish “are not English”. Apart from the howling impracticality of Cornwall existing as a sovereign entity, I would doubt whether more than 50% of the present population of Cornwall have been there for two generations, there having been a considerable influx of people from outside the county over the past 50 years. But even if every person living in Cornwall was born there it is difficult to see how they could be anything but English, the county having been effectively part of the English state since the Norman Conquest and arguably before that time.

I managed to put two questions after a decent preamble:

1, Where is the evidence that the English are no longer being demonised for asserting their Englishness?

Against this idea I pointed out the EDL’s crawling adherence to multiculturalism had not saved them from a shameful level of harassment by the state most plausibly because they had English in the movement’s title. When I described their treatment as more suited to a police state than a democracy this brought sounds of approval from the audience but looks of disapproval from some of the speakers. I further pointed out that as far as the Labour Party is concerned, the fact that two of their current MPs, Gisella Stuart and Jack Straw (who both sit for English seats), had referred to English national feeling as being “dangerous”.

I ended that part of the preamble by saying that before the English could feel safe from the persecution by the state all laws which proscribed speech which was un-pc would need to be repealed and the police restrained from their current pathetically eager interference with any public political activity deemed to be un-pc.

2. In the absence of any major British party showing any interest in taking up the English question how will anything change?

I received no meaningful answer to either of these questions.

It is difficult to see how progress can be made while the major political parties are controlled by elites who are resolutely opposed to giving the English a voice and a focus for political action through an English Parliament. Ironically, the most likely instrument for change would be a vote for independence by the Scots.

The other event which could provide impetus is an EU IN/OUT referendum, if one is ever held. A vote to leave would toss British politics up in the air and force the British political elite, whether they want to or not, to concentrate on national rather than supranational issues.

Robert Henderson 22 11 2013

Hertfordshire English Democrats Supporters Club

Not Left, Not Right, Just English!

Tag Archives: Scotland

Alex Salmond is a chancer in the mould of Paterson and Law

The Commonwealth Games: England should have many more medals against their name

Scottish Independence – How Cameron sold England down the river with the Edinburgh Agreement

BBC drama goes in to bat for Scottish independence

What happens if Scotland votes NO to independence?

Roger Scruton on the injustice done to England by devolution

What the British people want from their politicians … and what they get

SNP 2013 XMAS INDEPENDENCE NOVELTIES

The Scottish Independence Referendum – unanswered questions

The future of England