Tag Archives: England

The Scottish referendum and the accidental emergence of the English voice

Robert Henderson

The outcome of the Scottish independence referendum has  resulted in the breaking of a particularly effective omerta within the British political classes, namely, that there should be no acknowledgement of the wilful damage done to English interests by the devolution settlement of the late 1990s which has excluded her from having a national political voice while Scotland, Wales and Northern  Ireland were given such a voice and ever increasing devolved powers.

Having denied England her due for 16 years the Tory Party has suddenly embraced the idea constitutional equality with the rest of the UK with the necessary changes being made in tandem with the new powers so recklessly promised by Gordon Brown during the last days of the Referendum campaign.    No matter that the Tory Party has had this sudden conversion to being the upholder of English interests because it is a way of marginalising the Labour Party through both threatening to remove the influence of its many non-English seat MPs; no matter that so far all that is proposed is English votes for English laws rather than an English Parliament; no matter that the Labour and LibDem leaders have rejected the idea. What matters is that the English devolution train has started to move and once moving it will be very difficult to stop.

Cameron’s “solution” to the constitutional imbalance

The morning after the NO in the Scottish independence  referendum vote David  Cameron  proposed  this:

“Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.

The rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced as well.

It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom.

In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh Government and Assembly more powers.

And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations.

In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.

I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England.

We have heard the voice of Scotland – and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard.

The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question –requires a decisive answer.

So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.”

Whether Cameron could deliver much of this in the seven months before the General Election is highly dubious, both on the  grounds of time and the difficulty of getting agreement with the other major Westminster parties . Labour leader Ed Miliband has already refused to back the idea of linking English constitutional reform to the granting of extra powers to Scotland. This is for a crude political interest   reason: without Labour MPs from outside of England the Labour Party would have no chance of forming a government in England for the foreseeable future.  LibDem leader Nick Clegg has also refused to back Cameron’s proposal,  but has said he would support the formation of an English Grand Committee to scrutinise and amend English-only legislation. However,  this would still leave the UK parliament as it is present constructed with the final say which would include MPs for seats outside of England.

But  even if  Cameron  could  do it in the time and the other major Westminster Parties agreed to his proposal, it is difficult to see how Cameron could achieve what he wants – an equality of control over  national affairs in the four Home Countries – because he is determined not to have an English Parliament.  English votes for English laws suggests he wants to have only  MPs for English seats voting  on issues  which affect only England. (It is not clear at  present whether Cameron would exclude Welsh and Northern  Irish MPs . If  they were not excluded the problem of non-English MPs voting on English issues would remain.  But there is a difficulty in doing this insofar as Welsh and Northern Irish devolved powers are less than those already in Scotland and even more inferior to a Scotland with the proposed new powers.  The solution to this is to give all four Home Nations equal devolved powers.)

But excluding non-English seat MPs from voting on English issues would not  entirely  solve the problem.  There would still be the question of who makes the policy on which the MPs vote.  It is easy to see how a situation could arise where a Labour government  or a coalition  government with MPs drawn  from non-English seats  could have an overall majority in the Commons  but be in the minority amongst English MPs.   If that was the case it would not be for such a government to make laws for England because it would be non-English MPs making English policy.  English laws would have to be formulated and developed  by an executive drawn only from English-seat MPs. That would  mean   two executives in the Commons, one dealing with English affairs and one with all other affairs.  It would be unworkable.    If there was both an English Parliament and a Federal government the problem would not exists because the two executives would be clearly delineated and their areas of responsibility  obvious.

Consider also the position at a UK wide general election.  How would those standing for seats outside of England campaign? If such MPs were allowed to be   part of the policy making process  for English-only legislation but were not allowed to vote,  what exactly would they put in their election manifestoes about such a  situation? Similarly what would the parties they represent put in the Party manifesto?  If MPs outside of England were excluded from both voting and  policy making on English-only matters  would the Party manifestoes for seats outside of England  have to exclude any mention of what the Party manifesto for England said on English-only issues?

There is also a serious procedural  problem with English votes for English laws, namely, who would decide what is an English only issue. It has been suggested the Speaker would make the decision. That would place a dangerously large  amount of political power and influence in the hands of one man. (Imagine the present speaker John Bercow making such a decision  when faced with a Tory government).  But whatever the arrangements for making such a decision  there would be immense opportunity for dissension and many seemingly English-only issues could end up classified as not qualifying as English-only.  Indeed, while the Barnet Formula remains any English legislation with spending implications could be argued  to not be English-only because what England gets to spend is linked to what Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive: England gets more for the NHS, the other home nations gets a proportionate boost to their spending . That difficulty could be removed by abolishing the Barnett Formula but that would cause a great uproar amongst the Celtic Fringe.  There would also be the a problem if the Welsh and  Northern Irish assemblies were not given the same powers as the  Scottish parliament because  that would also cause great confusion and argument.

But the question of English representation goes beyond mere numbers. Even if  a Westminster government  is formed with a majority of English MPs, the fact that MPs from outside of  England would still be able to both vote on and help frame  English-only legislation  and policy would colour that legislation and policy  because personal relationships between politicians of the governing party would compromise  the desire of the government to act in England’s interests. (The smaller the government majority  amongst English MPs  the more influence non-English seat MPs would be able to exert because their voice would be louder and the Government would  always be afraid of a general rebellion by the non-English seat MPs if non-English  interests were  not being pandered to. With a government with a tiny majority of English seats this could well result in defeat for the government.)

If the Westminster government with a majority English-seat MPs  was formed by a party with strong representation in one or more of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, the temptation not to act solely in English interests would be strong because of the fear that what was done at Westminster could damage their standing in the other Home Countries.   A coalition with an English-seat majority  which excluded the Tory  Party would be particularly difficult  for England because it would have non-English seat MPs  from different parties pulling in different directions.

The plain truth is that the only practical  and honest solution to the constitutional mess  is an English Parliament. It would allow an exact equality of powers and national focus to be granted to each of the Home Nations. The Parliament  could be created very simply at little or no additional cost: only MPs for English seats would be elected to the  House of Commons which would become what it was originally, an English institution.

An English Parliament would remove not only the practical difficulties of  deciding who should make policy to put before  the Commons and  what legislation was to be dealt with only by English seat MPs, it would force England’s representatives to concentrate on England’s interests first, second and last.

The UK federal Parliament could be created simply by forming it of the MPs of the four Home Country national Parliaments.    With federal matters restricted to a handful of important issues – defence, macro fiscal policy, foreign affairs, homeland security and suchlike – the federal parliament would not have that much to do. This would allow it to  meet at Westminster if a physical gathering is required or it could be conducted through linking the four national parliaments via the Web  The federal government would be formed as the UK government is now, on a majority drawn from the four Home Country parliaments.

The attempts to fudge the English constitutional question

There are  already frantic elite  attempts to fudge the English question  in play. As soon as the NO vote was certain the mainstream media and Libdem and Labour politicians started pushing the idea of devolving the powers Scotland had to either English regions or councils. The BBC was particularly assiduous in this respect with Radio 5 who started their propagandising for devolution which would deny England a Parliament as soon as it became clear in the early hours of the morning  that the NO vote would win.

Devolving to English regions or even councils  the powers enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament after the new powers are added  manifestly cannot achieve  what Cameron wants, namely, equality of treatment for England.  For example, Scotland is to have new tax raising powers over income tax. If  such powers were given to English regions or large conurbations , this would simply result in a hideously complex post-code lottery which would set one area against another.   But it would not simply be  a matter of setting one area against another which would be an ill consequence of such devolution. Imagine what would happen if  one area suffered a severe shortfall in revenue under such a tax regime?  This could happen because they set the rates too low to make up for any new taxpaying businesses or individuals they attracted or because there was a flight from higher  tax areas. Would what remained of central government in the UK  be willing to stand idly by and allow vital public services in the afflicted area  to fall into disuse? Most probably not, but that would raise a problem: if much of the revenue raising had  been devolved where exactly would the money come from to bail the at risk region or council out?   But even if central government did have the funds,  it would be politically toxic for them to be handing out money to a region or city which could not fund its public services because it had set its local tax rates too low. Solvent regions or cities would be up in arms. There would be plenty of issues such as this. The whole thing would be an administrative mess of heroic proportions.

Regional assemblies would not work  even if their remit was restricted to genuinely local matters and their taxation powers remained small. . This is because there are no English regions which have anything approaching  as strong an identity as any of the home  nations. Most  of England has no strong regional identity.  Even the North East and Cornwall – the two English areas most commonly touted as having a strong regional identity – would be unsuitable.  The North East is comprised of Northumberland and  Durham but that has strong antipathies within it, for example, the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland.   Cornwall is too small to stand on its own – with much of its population not being Cornish but incomers  – and  a South West Region comprising Cornwall, Devon and Somerset  would have no natural unity. The Northwest would include Manchester and Liverpool, two major  cities with little love for one another.

At the level of devolution to towns and cities, this would raise the problem of what to do with the considerable stretches of England without large cities or substantial towns.  That would rule out extending the powers of large cities and towns to the surrounding countryside in much of England..

What needs to be done now?

Although English votes for English laws on policies developed by MPs from England and put forward by an English executive  would be very messy and ultimately impractical, the adoption of the scheme   could be used as a springboard to an English parliament. This would be partly because the public would see that it was not working efficiently or fairly and partly because the habit of publicly speaking about English interests and English constitutional circumstances would have been formed. That would embolden politicians and the mainstream media to advocate an English parliament.   If it was only English votes for English laws with MPs outside of  England still forming part of the policy determining  group for the legislation for England,  this clear evidence of  blatant inequality between England and the other Home Nations  would boost demand for  English votes for English laws to be scrapped and English Parliament put in its place.

The danger for England is that she will end up  without anything which goes anyway towards remedying the disadvantage she is presently under.  Nothing will be decided before the 2015 General Election and if Labour form a government, whether on their own or in coalition with the parties other than the Tories, the chances of English votes for English laws getting off the ground is remote. In such circumstances the issue of English devolution would be likely to be kicked into the long grass with things such as a constitutional convention and the devolution of some unimportant extra powers to the cities. I doubt whether regional assemblies would be attempted because of the resounding rejection  of an assembly in the North East in 2004. It would also look like treating England as a second class citizen.  The idea of devolving important powers such as those  granted to Scotland to cities  would be a non-starter .

If the Tories have a modicum of sense they will go to the country on a platform of  English rights. Ideally, this should  contain support for an English Parliament , but even English votes for English laws would have considerable traction with English electors because at long last there would be a major Party which appeared to be “speaking for England”.  Such a platform would place both Labour and the LibDems in an impossible electoral position because a refusal to allow the English to have the same powers as the Scots, Welsh and Irish would be self-evidently unreasonable.

Salmond vs Darling round 2 – The  shameless chancer versus the trembling incompetent

Robert Henderson

The second Darling vs Salmond debate on 25 August was even more depressing than the first. It might have been thought that having gone through one debate the palpable nervousness both showed the first time round  would have been largely gone.  In the event Salmond  was less nervous,  but Darling was  embarrassingly anxious.

Whoever thought Darling was a safe pair of hands for this type of work was profoundly wrong. The man is woefully ill equipped for a one-to one-debate. Throughout he frequently fell into  stuttering and even when he did not – which was primarily when he was reading from prepared notes – his delivery was leaden. When Salmond attacked him Darling  seemed peevish; when the audience derided him or asked insulting questions he was utterly at sea. (example audience comment: “I think the  fundamental difference here is that the YES campaign are fighting passionately for the future of  Scotland; Alastair Darling and others are fighting passionately for their jobs”)  Darling  spent much of the debate staring blankly ahead  like a rabbit caught in a car’s headlights while Salmond stood looking at him grinning insultingly. Darling also waved his hands for emphasis far too much, while  his habit of pointing at Salmond was a sorry mistake.

Darling also got his strategy wrong by concentrating heavily, almost obsessively,  on the point which he had laboured in the first debate,  namely, what Salmond would do if there was a vote for independence and Scotland was denied a currency union with the rest of the UK .  This is a seriously difficult question for Salmond,  but there  are only so many times a debating opponent can be prodded with the same weapon before the audience becomes restive, and restive is what they became here. The nadir of this Darling obsession came when the debate reached the section where the two politicians questioned each other. What was Darling’s first question? You’ve guessed it:  “What is your plan B for the currency?”  It was an open goal for Salmond who immediately taunted Darling with being a one-trick pony.

The way Darling asked  questions was also feeble. Not only did he keep repeating the same things, but time and again he allowed Salmond to ask him questions when he, Darling,  was supposed to be grilling Salmond. nNor did Darling seemed to have prepared himself properly,  because he was constantly running into trouble with  questions for which there was a perfectly reasonable answer, an answer which should have been anticipated.  For example, Darling was asked what his choice of the best  currency for an independent  Scotland would be if a currency union was not available. That should have been his cue to say any of the alternatives on offer was  unpalatable or that none was better than the others  and use the opportunity to run through the various weaknesses of the currencies on offer: new currency, sterlingisation and joining the Euro. Instead Darling kept on feebly saying he would not choose anything which was second best for Scotland. That of course led to calls for him to explain why he did not back a currency union which was, of course, the best bet.

Apart from  his personal deficiencies and misjudgement of which subjects to raise, Darling was at a disadvantage because he is a Scot, a Labour MP  and the last Labour Chancellor.  The fact that he is a Scot means he is vulnerable to any question which places him in a position where he if he answered honestly he might be portrayed as having no confidence in Scotland. In the first debate when Salmond asked Darling  whether Darling believed Scotland could go it alone, Darling floundered around saying he thought Scotland could but it would not be the best thing for Scotland. This allowed Salmond to keep on pressing him by asking why he had no confidence in Scotland. Here, Darling  allowed himself to be lured into flatly admitting that Scotland could use the Pound if they chose to use it because the Pound  is  a freely traded and convertible currency. This had Salmond bouncing around shrieking that Darling had said Scotland could use the Pound. Darling  desperately tried to mend the damage by pointing out that it would mean having no say on how the Pound was managed or having a central bank to act as lender of the last resort, but the damage was done with his initial admission without qualification.

The fact that Darling is a Scot also meant that he could not easily raise the question of the interests of the rest of the UK  for any suggestion that he was concerned more for the rest of the UK than Scotland  risks accusations of being a  Quisling in the service of England. Consequently,, those interests were only raised very briefly when Salmond tried the “will of the Scottish” people gambit again in an attempt to get  Darling to agree that if there is a YES vote  that would mean Salmond would have a mandate to insist on a currency union with the rest of the UK  (Go into recording of the debate at 21 minutes)   Darling  did point out that sharing the Pound with Scotland might not be the “will of the rest of the UK”.

When Salmond repeated his threat  that  Scotland’s liability for a proportionate share of the UK national debt would be repudiated  if a currency union was refused, Darling did not do the obvious, say  that  Scotland could not have their independence  legally unless the Westminster Parliament repealed the Act of Union.  No taking on a proportionate share of the debts, no repeal of the Act of Union.   Darling  could also have pointed out that the rest of the UK could block Scotland’s entry into the EU if the debt was not taken on, but failed to do so.

Being the last Labour Chancellor also allowed Salmond to attack Darling on the grounds of his economic competence because of the vast addition to the National Debt built up under his chancellorship and the massive budget deficit he left the coalition.  Being a Labour MP left him open to jibes about  being in bed with the Tories just because he was putting the case to stay within the Union.

There was also two other  built-in advantages for Salmond which had nothing to do with Darling’s shortcomings . 200 of the  audience of  220  was supposedly scientifically chosen by the polling organisation ComRes  to reflect the balance of YES, NOs and Don’t Knows in the Scottish electorate.  The remaining 20 , again supposedly chosen to reflect the balance of opinion in Scotland, were chosen by the BBC from those who had sent questions in prior to the debate.  Whether the selection was honestly and competently made to reflect the balance of opinion, judging by the audience reaction there seemed to be more YES  than NO  people in the audience.  The YES camp certainly made a great deal of noise while the NO camp was pretty quiet.

Darling’s final handicap was the fact that debate’s moderator  Glenn Campbell  behaved in a way which intentionally or not  favoured Salmond.  Arguably ten of the thirteen questions  from the audience came from committed YES voters. It is rather difficult to understand how simple chance could have produced such a bias to one side of the debate.  In addition Campbell made only half-hearted attempts  to stop  Salmond and Darling interrupting one another. As Salmond was the prime culprit,  this gave him advantage, because whenever he interrupted he almost invariably went into a long riff which was rarely cut short by Campbell.  When Darling interrupted it was generally to correct Salmond on a point of fact and his interruptions were generally short. Moreover,  Darling did his cause no favours by allowing himself to look visibly put out by questions which were essentially crude abuse.

Salmond’s  strategy in the second debate was straightforward: to make an emotional appeal to Scots patriotism as often as possible whilst giving as little detail  as he could get away with of what would happen if there was a YES vote.   He largely succeeded  because of Darling’s truly dreadful performance and Campbell’s ineffective moderation, although his refusal to tie down the currency question continued to cause him discomfort and he got himself into a mess when answering a question about the loss of jobs if the Trident nuclear subs and missiles were removed from the Clyde as the SNP promised.  (To the latter question Salmond claimed that the Trident Base would become the centre of Scotland’s independent defence force   and this would  make up for the loss of Trident. On being pressed for details of how that could be, he did his usual, simply claiming it was so.  )

Some important issues other than the currency and the Nuclear deterrent were raised, the oil and gas reserves (a shouting match with different figures being thrown around), the NHS  (Salmond had to admit that Scotland could not be forced to privatise the NHS because they controlled the Scottish part of it) and the entry of an independent Scotland into the EU (Salmond simply asserted that the EU would let Scotland join without being bound by the requirements of new members such as membership of the Euro).  Important issues al, but l treated in a superficial fashion.

What effect did the debate have? An ICM Poll for the Guardian shortly after the debate ended gave the debate 71% to 29% to Salmond. However, the sample was unscientific, viz: ‘ICM,  said the sample of 505 adults was not representative of the Scottish electorate at large and support for independence was “identical” before and after the debate. ‘ 

That there has been no radical shift is unsurprising because of the unsatisfactory nature of the debates which provided all too little hard information. For the onlooker,  the two debates could almost be reduced to the unwillingness  or inability of Salmond to address the currency question meaningfully  and Darling’s nervousness and general ineptitude  which showed all too bleakly  just how much modern politicians rely on the recital of set positions and are unable to think on their feet.    As  vehicles for informing the voters in the referendum they were next to worthless.

All in all, a most dismal display of the meagre quality of our politicians.

 

See also

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/alex-salmond-is-a-chancer-in-the-mould-of-paterson-and-law/

We must choose our words carefully – Letter:- Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) – Friday, August 15, 2014

We must choose our words carefully

Letter:- Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) – Friday, August 15, 2014


I have just watched Andrew Neill’s programme on the BBC about the implications of Scottish independence for “the Rest of the UK” I am not a lawyer, but the constitutional legal position has been explained to me by a solicitor with expertise in constitutional law, and it seems fairly straightforward.

Wales and England were united in a 16th-century Act of Parliament under which, constitutionally, Wales became part of England.

The Kingdom of England (E) and the Kingdom of Scotland (S) were united by the Act of Union of 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, (G), with a single parliament, (the British Parliament) in Westminster.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland through a further Act of Union in 1801. With the partition of Ireland in 1922, we were left with the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

For Scotland to leave the UK, it would be necessary to repeal the 1707 Act of Union. From the moment of that legislation’s receipt of Royal Assent, there would be no more United Kingdom. (E+S=G ergo G-S=E.) The British Parliament would have no constitutional validity and the British Government would also cease to exist.

Since the union of Ireland, in 1801, was with Great Britain, once Great Britain ceases to exist, so does any union with it.

So, any talk of “the Rest of the UK” is codswallop.

Scottish independence (bring it on!) will mean the dissolution of the United Kingdom and any negotiation of the terms of exit will have to be undertaken by representatives of England, as the former British Government will have ceased to have any mandate.

Clive Lavelle

Weston-super-Mare English Democrats 

Here is a link to the original >>>
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=UKNB&p_text_direct-0=document_id=(%2014FB8976864149B0%20)&p_docid=14FB8976864149B0&p_theme=aggdocs&p_queryname=14FB8976864149B0&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=S6AR60NXMTQwODM2MzU2MS42MzE3OTI6MTo4OnJmLTE5MDcy&&p_multi=WDP1

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.

England can’t speak up for its interests The spectre of over population is already a stark reality for England’s inhabitants.

 

England can’t speak up for its interests 

 Another letter by a member in the Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) – Saturday, August 2, 2014. What do you think?
 
The spectre of over population is already a stark reality for England’s inhabitants.

Due to the so-called UK government’s crass NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) subservient English councils and JCS bodies, bullied by Westminster, are destroying our countryside.

Westminster and its self-seeking UK parties, due to 1999’s devolution, have no political authority outside of England in local government, so it can only desecrate England’s countryside.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) predicts “that if immigration and population trends continue as they are the UK population will be 132 million by 2100” with England’s population, being 85 per cent of that in the UK, rising to 111 million.

England’s current 53 million people generate a density of 407 people per square kilometre (ppsk) making it already the third most densely populated country on earth after Bangladesh and South Korea – this density will rise to 850 ppsk with 111 million people.

Immigration, an issue of “numbers”, is England’s greatest concern for over 95 per cent of immigrants, purported to come to the UK by Westminster, actually come to England.

Immigration debates on BBC Question Time are elementary and always end in a squabble over racism when the real issue is “numbers” yet no politician says the obvious “we have too many people in England”.

Preposterously the only conclusion they ever reach is to “to build 300,000 houses annually (in England) each year for next ten years – when England is already Europe’s “Bangladesh”. If France had a density of 407 ppsk its population now would be over 200 million and not the current 65 million.

Typical current “ppsk” densities in European countries are Germany 231, France 120, Italy 202, Spain 94 etc yet all face similar ageing, demographic problems.

However, like all proper democracies, they have national governments who protect their national interests – not so in England for we have no “national” governance.

Surveys show over 80 per cent of England’s inhabitants rightly say their country is already full and a density of 400 ppsk must now be a maximum for a sane stable and sustainable environment – England is already facing the spectre of over population.

Westminster and its remote self-indulging UK parties are not building “Jerusalem” in England’s green and pleasant land, they are erasing it.

R A Hopkins

Leckhampton, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
 http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=UKNB&p_text_direct-0=document_id=(%2014F6EBDD8AAC8B40%20)&p_docid=14F6EBDD8AAC8B40&p_theme=aggdocs&p_queryname=14F6EBDD8AAC8B40&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=N5FK5FFWMTQwNzUyMjU5OC43OTAxNDM6MTo4OnJmLTE5MDcy&&p_multi=WDP1

Unionist Nigel Farage ducks the English Question. At a meeting of the Institute for Government his keynote speech was followed by questions. Listen to what he says!

Nigel Farage ducks the English Question! Again!

English Nationalists take note!

Here is the key clip >>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqQe3KJDhQY&list=UULXT-HuPORYWUC57YbKryQg&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqQe3KJDhQY&list=UULXT-HuPORYWUC57YbKryQg&index=1

At (the 23rd June 2014) event, Nigel Farage … spoke at the Institute for Government on the role of the state and how (UKIP) would run a government.

Mr Farage opened by acknowledging that …. UKIP was highly unlikely to form the next government (but he claimed) it would be in a position to affect other parties’ manifestos and may even gain some MPs at the next general election. Its view on the role of government was, he said, potentially very important.

See more at: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/events/nigel-farage-keynote-speech-role-state#sthash.sNZSFzyr.dpuf

12th July is English National Unity Day – On the 12th July 927AD

Eamont in an old map


Our Press Release:- 12th July is English National Unity Day

On the 12th July 927AD King Athelstan of the Royal House of Wessex, was recognised as the first King of all England at the Council of Eamont, Cumberland. The English Democrats will be holding celebrations on the 12th July 2014 across England to mark English Unity Day and to call for an English Unity National Holiday.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:-

“This 12th July will be the one thousand and eighty seventh anniversary of English Unity. It was the day on which King Athelstan realised the dream of the Venerable Bede and Alfred the Great and completed the mission of the Royal House of Wessex to unite England into a single united Nation State.

“England is by far the oldest Nation State in Europe and arguably the oldest Nation State on earth.

“The 12th July is an anniversary of history and pride for all patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen and should be celebrated with all the enthusiasm that the Americans bring to their Independence Day or the French bring to Bastille Day.”

Notes to Editors
The 2011 Census showed that England has over 32 million (32,007,983) people (or 60.4%) who have stated they have only English National Identity. A further 4.8 million (4,820,181) people (or 9.1%) stated that their National Identity is ‘English and British’.

In sharp contrast with this nearly 70% being English there were only a mere 10 million (10,171,834) people (or 19.2%) who claimed to be ‘British Only’. A substantial proportion of these ‘British Only’ appear, from cross referencing with the results of the Census’ ethnicity question, to be of non English ethnicity (ie Scottish, Welsh or Irish).

The Office for National Statistics nationality statistics can be found here)>>>http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262. The Nationality results are at: 2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, local authorities in England and Wales.

Also demand for English Independence is increasing rapidly in England and although reactive to the movement for Scottish Independence it is not dependent on it. The June 2011 ComRes survey done for the BBC showed that then there was 36% support for England to be a fully Independent Country irrespective of the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum later this year.

No Murdo! Keep your nose out of English Business!

PRESS RELEASE

No Murdo!  Keep your nose out of English Business!

Murdo Fraser, the Conservatives’ “Enterprise spokesman” in the Scottish Parliament told Glasgow University on Thursday that devolution to the UK nations must be balanced with greater powers to the English regions.

He claimed it would be “straightforward” to create a federal system for the nations by devolving tax-varying powers but full UK federalism would not work “on the basis of England as a single unit”.

“It is quite possible to envisage a network of strong cities, or city regions, emerging to which powers could be devolved.”

“We can then add into the mix historic counties with a strong local identity, such as Yorkshire or Cornwall.”

“We do have areas such as the North-East or North-West, or East Midlands, which already have a coherent regional identity, and very quickly the map of England is filled up with a patchwork of local units, maybe not identical in geographic size, population or wealth, but all having an identifiable local focus.”

Federalism would also resolve the “West Lothian Question” – the right of non-English MPs to vote on purely English matters – and reform of the Lords, Mr Fraser claims.

According to the Government’s own MacKay Commission Report there is much less support for breaking England up into such “Regions” than for outright English Independence from the UK. 

Perhaps Murdo Fraser MSP is promoting this new attempt to break up England for the same reason as the Liberal Democrats, “Charlie” Kennedy told Dunfermline Lib Dems in 1999 that he supported Regionalisation for England because it was “bringing into question the idea of England itself!”

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:-  “We don’t want Scottish politicians telling the English that England should be broken up. My message to any such Scottish politicians is keep your nose out of English business.”

Robin continued:- “The sooner the UK is dissolved the quicker the Nations of the former UK can live as friendly neighbours!”

Robin also said:-  “Dissolution of the UK is why the English Democrats are supporting a ‘YES’ vote for Scotland on the 18th September.  Mr Murdo Fraser claims that “UK federalism would not work on the basis of England as a single unit”.  I say ‘so be it’!  Let’s dissolve a Union which  is in any case well past its sell by date!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

Shhh! Lib Dems are about!

There seems to be something about Liberal Democrats that makes them hate England. At the moment they are, I don’t think the word is too strong to use, conspiring to find another way of breaking England up into “Regions”.

Their behind the scenes activity in think-tanks and discussion groups is all about trying to find another way of energising the “Regionalisation” of England. Their talk is all about trying to confuse people between talking about counties and “Regions” in the same breath so that people do not look at the small print to see that in fact what is intended is nothing to do with counties but everything to do with “Regionalisation”. In their desperation they are even trying to say that the North-east referendum result was not a vote against “Regionalistion”!

Now we have two Liberal Democrat Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord William Wallace of Saltaire who arranged a debate for Monday, 16th June in the House of Lords entitled “Plans for further de-centralisation of the UK in the event of a “No” vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum”. Observers of the oily disingenuousness of our LibDem political masters will find no surprise that the key element of the discussion was about how to break up England.

The names that they have chosen to give their titles suggest that these two noble Lords loyalties might lie North of the Border, but Lord William Wallace of Saltaire is in fact an academic who has spent most of his life in England, but has distinguished himself politically by his desire to advance the cause of European integration for which reason he has been awarded the Légion d’Honneur.

So far as Lord Purvis of Tweed is concerned, the Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Post, reported on the 20th October 2013 that “Purvis returns as Lord Jazzer despite ballot box defeat” who reported that “Purvis, a MSP until the SNP landslide in 2011 is a man steeped in constitutional concerns. Nick Clegg has made him Lord Purvis of Tweed to act as a bridge-man between the Westminster and Holyrood parties. Even his title straddles the border. Said Purvis:- “I’ll bring the respect of someone who has been a Member of the Scottish Parliament as a fan of the procedures in Holyrood. It will provide a platform to work on the growing middle ground as an alternative to independence.”” The paper rightly continues “The problem for Purvis, with his talk of accountability, democracy and constitution, is that on Tuesday he will don an outrageous ermine cloak and take his place in the least accountable or democratic place in British politics. This is, after all, a man rejected by the voters returning to front line politics without the need for an election.”

So there we have it, the classic Westminster farce in which people talk about democracy, accountability, citizenship and community, whilst trying to work to deny the English their sense of a national community.

Never forget that a former LibDem leader, Charlie Kennedy told an enthusiastic meeting of Liberal Democrats in Dunfermline in 1999 that he supported the break-up of England into Regions because he said “In England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”!

So what should an Englishman do when the LibDems are about? Perhaps we could use US President Teddy Roosevelt’s famous saying: “speak softly and carry a big stick”? 

What do you think?

 

Karl Marx’s views of England and the English

Karl Marx’s views of England and the English

I have recently been reading a book about Karl Marx. Although I have read some of his works before I have never read a full biography of him. I could heartily recommend, as an interesting and informative read:- KARL MARX by Francis Wheen.

For those interested in Karl Marx’s views of England and the English, he was, of course, one of those refugees, a bit like, Abu Hamza, who lived here for many years but yet never integrated, nor had any great love for us. Just consider the following comments on page 142:-

“After brooding on the lessons of the previous year, (Marx) published a revised revolutionary menu on 1 January 1849:

The overthrow of the bourgeoisie in France, the triumph of the French working class, the emancipation of the working class in general, is therefore the rallying cry of European liberation.

But England, the country that turns whole nations into its proletarians, that takes the whole world within its immense embrace …England seems to be the rock against which the revolutionary waves break, the country where the new society is stifled in the womb.

Every social upheaval in France was bound to be thwarted by the industrial and commercial power of the English middle class, ‘and only a world war can overthrow the Old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organised English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their gigantic oppressors!. This seasonal game of consequences – which, more than a century later, would come to be known as the domino theory – led to an inescapable and apocalyptic conclusion. ‘The table of contents for 1849 reads: Revolutionary uprising of the French working class, world war.”