Union or Independence

I was told, the other day, that David Cameron and co. should stop making comments about the Independence referendum that is scheduled to occur in Scotland in September 2014.  The thrust of this, pro-Union, person was that Cameron drives the undecided and those in the 'No camp' into being Yes voters because he is so English.  Tory boy toff and Eton educated were mentioned as some kind of toxic association.

He went on to suggest that Cameron could do more for the No campaign by  saying something along the lines of Cameron actually wanting Scotland to leave the Union and this would make Cameron very happy, etc..  The general thought was that because Cameron is English and because he is a Tory, whatever he says antagonizes voters and makes them do the opposite thing to whatever Cameron wants!

I do not share the opinion that Scottish voters are so shallow that they would take such a momentous decision based on a knee-jerk reaction to comments made by the UK Prime Minister.  Nor do I subscribe to the thoughts that the decision is solely a Scottish decision and that the rest of the United Kingdom can have no say in the matter.    I welcome the contributions made by the non-Scottish based MPs as well as those Scottish based ones.  Also, the honesty that they are displaying in telling the Scots, things that their own elected representatives seem 'feart' to tell them.  For example, that if Scotland voted for independence, they would not be able to use the Pound Sterling as a currency.  Or rather they would be able to use it but would have zero influence over economic policy and would not be able to depend upon the Bank of England for any bail-outs or such. 

It is unfortunately all too rare that we can count on politicians being truthful and so large doses of salt must be taken but the very loud and very public unanimity amongst the leaders of the British parties, suggests that they would find it very difficult to row back on this matter.

When asked, by the leading (and Scottish) commentator, Andrew Neil, what was the Scottish Nationalist Party's Plan B given the united front displayed by Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the SNP took almost 15 minutes saying that the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems didn't actually mean it and all the time, when repeatedly pressed, clearly demonstrated that the SNP have no Plan B!

Couple the Westminster position with the Brussels position, that all new members must adopt the Euro currency, and the EU saying that an independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU and you can see where things are heading, currency-wise, in an independent Scotland.

It is difficult to adopt a Mel Gibson/Willam Wallace stance and cry 'FREEDOM' as you throw off the supposed shackles of English dominance and then immediately replace them with those of the undemocratic EU.  I know that the Brussels gravy train pays a lot better than the Westminster one but it's a funny kind of independence that is being offered!

However, it seems that the SNP are not the only ones without a Plan B.  Recent reports suggest that the UK Government has no plan in place for how they will deal with a Yes to independence majority vote.  (Other than saying that an independent Scotland would not be part of a Pound Sterling currency union!)

I am pro-Union.  I believe that the countries of the United Kingdom are 'better together', however, surely it is stupid or some might say, arrogant, to not give any thought to what would be the consequences of a Yes vote?

Some of the issues are reasonably straightforward, at the macro level. For example, sharing out National Debt.  However, what about a simple thing like deciding citizenship?  Is an English-born worker in Aberdeen's oil industry to be considered as 'Scottish' for pension purposes, come the day?  Is a Scot, working in London's banking industry to receive a pension from the rump UK or from Scotland?  They will currently both be paying into the same system.  This is just one of the very many complex questions that would need to be answered but it beggars belief that no one in either government seems to be thinking about this.  Or is it that they are just not saying?

One further example.  Say there is a Yes vote and say that after the shock has worn off, a timetable is agreed that sets a date for separation in mid 2018.  What then of the 2015 UK General election?  Would the MPs elected for Scottish Westminster have any right (certainly only a very questionable moral one)  to vote on issues that affect only the rump UK?  Should they be restricted to only voting on 'Scottish' issues?  Would Scottish voters be involved in a 2017 referendum on EU membership, as promised by the Conservatives (if they were successful in the General Election)?

Scotland and Independence

Some of you will have read my previous posts about the fear that surrounds Alex Salmond and the SNP,  (fear of calling a referendum) and their trying to squeeze ever more concessions out of the UK government.  This on top of the excessive funding that Scotland already receives.

Well, seems like someone is finally listening.  The timing of the referendum is being discussed by the UK government as well as the question to be posed.

Salmond and Co. want a three choice option.  Something like:

Do you want complete independence for Scotland and a break with the United Kingdom or do you want greater powers for the Scottish Assembly?

• Yes, complete independence
• No, remain part of the United Kingdom
• Greater powers for the Scottish Assembly but remain part of the UK

The SNP and fellow travelers think that when faced with such a choice, they will get what they really want - Greater Powers. 

I believe that they know they will not get a majority Yes (what would be a majority?  More than 50% of the eligible voters (that is those registered to vote in Scotland) or more than 50% of those that bother to vote?)  

Getting Greater Powers is what they really want as this way they can strut and preen themselves as leaders without needing to face the full economic consequences of their actions - i.e. they will demand that the English continue to subsidize them.

As I said earlier, I think that the English should also be asked for their opinion or view. 

I think the question on both sides of the border should be:
                   Do you want Scotland to remain a member country of the United Kingdom?

• Yes
• No

A majority would be when 50% plus 1 vote of those eligible to vote is met.

The referendum needn't be binding ( I am not sure any referendum is binding on the UK Government) but this would give a sense of English  and Scottish feelings.on the matter. 


Also, whatever the outcome, the Barnett formula must go and the subsidy to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) must end.   This needs to happen before the March Budget.

Then we can see if they can afford free university education and prescriptions etc.

Scotland funding is grossly unfair

That is according to the chairman of the Local Government Association.

Local authority funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is governed by the so called Barnett Formula.  This was a 'stop-gap' measure introduced, by the then Labour government,  in the late 1970s which has survived until now because politicians have failed to 'grasp the nettle' and address the inherent "unfairness and plain illogicality" of it.

Whenever a English department gets a change to its budget, the other countries of the Union get an automatic share.  The formula is based on population rather than need.

For example, when the UK Government froze council tax for English councils, saying that they couldn't raise additional taxes from local tax payers, the Government softened the blow by giving these councils an additional grant.  Simply, because of the formula, an extra £67.5 million was then given to Scotland.  This even though the devolved Scottish parliament had already frozen council tax in Scotland!

As another example, Scotland and Wales both receive extra money because Crossrail is being built in London.  Even though both of these countries don't have to make  a case for local projects requiring such funding!

Oh!, and when cuts are being made, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, get cut less!

Recent research shows that if the formula was revised there would be an additional £2.6 billion of funds diverted from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to English local authorities.  That would help keep quite a few English libraries open and 'meals on wheels' services running, wouldn't it?

According to the UK Treasury, the Government spend per person, in Scotland was £10,212 last year.  That was £1,624 per person, more than in England.

 Someone not a million miles from Downing Street keeps saying "We're all in this together" but I can't help thinking that those on the Celtic fringe are better protected than the heartland majority.

I can understand Labour protecting the Barnett Formula - it was devised by them and protects their strongholds that have, so far, always returned  lots of Labour MPs.  Why do the Conservatives keep it on?

Time for an equitable change!

Even Lord Barnett, he who devised the formula, says so!

To any English socialists reading this, ask your local MP (whatever party) and your local councilor what they are doing and have already done about this and why they don't highlight this 'unfairness' rather than just bleating on about the 'cuts'.

To the rest of you, speak up about this inequitable situation!

John Terry to be charged

John Terry is to be prosecuted over an allegation of committing an aggravated racial assault.  The incident occurred during a game between Chelsea and QPR, in October.  Chelsea lost the game 1-0.

This is such a shame as throughout his career John Terry has demonstrated what a fine upstanding person he is.  I mean, forget about parking in 'disabled bays' and marital infidelity, that could happen to any captain of England that plays for Chelsea.  Rather remember those great performances that he has given in the service of the national side.

Oh Wait !

He hasn't actually given any great performances.  He was as leaden as could be against Germany in the World Cup, and that may have been one of his better performances!

English Police and the August Riots

The tactics employed by the police, during the riots that swept England in August 2011 have come in for much criticism, from various study reports. 

Today it was suggested that the police should have used water cannon and rubber bullets/baton rounds and even possibly live ammunition. 

Like many I was horrified at the lawlessness that was allowed to occur and at the inaction of the police. 

I don't really need long-winded studies to tell me that by standing back and doing nothing the police encouraged the rioters who quickly came to the conclusion that their actions would have no consequences and the benefit of cheap purloined goods.

The robust sentencing that was practised, disabused the rioters of the latter but the hands-off approach of the police still hangs as a likely outcome for any future disturbances unless the police and the government state, in the strongest possible terms, that should any such outbreaks occur, we will deal with them very severely.

That is, the police will use water cannon (maybe with an indelible dye?) and will use baton rounds and if required will use firearms to protect life.

The police need to know that such use will not then be subject to 20:20 hindsight review because some poor rioter got injured.  If you are on the streets during a riot, the chances are you are part of that riot and I make no apologies to say that if you are there and you get hurt - tough!

Incidentally, my conspiratorial mind wonders if the police stood back to try and send a message to the Government along the lines of ' this is why you need us and don't even think about trying to reform us because this could happen again'.

Comments?

Scotland the brave?

Scotland the brave? 

Or

Scotland the coward?

We hear time and again that Alex Salmond will decide when to call a referendum on independence. 

We also hear much about the SNP mandate for governing Scotland.

So what is stopping the SNP calling a referendum?

Lack of courage or belief that they will get an answer that suits them?  Or, that once called, whatever the outcome, they will have lost their major, indeed only, bargaining chip with the UK Parliament?

I don't know how the Scots would vote.  I sense that they would want to stay with the Union, if given the choice but we may never know because I believe the SNP don't really want a vote.

However, I am not sure that the English would say the same if they were given the choice.  And surely when the question is to break or keep a long-standing union is posed, both parties to the union should be consulted - that is, the Scots and the English.

I think it is time for Cameron and the UK Parliament to 'lance this boil' and call a referendum on both sides of the border and not wait on the whims of the wily Alex.

Then once that is out of the way, if Scotland votes for 'freedom' to quote Mel Gibson, they can go on their merry way to a socialist oblivion and the English can remain the conservative and prosperous nation it always has been.  (Please, if you comment, do not prattle on about 'Scottish oil' and I promise not to give a lecture on Maritime Law and ocean boundaries)

The interesting thing might be, what if Scotland says no to independence and England says yes? 

Scotland decides it wants to stay part of the UK and receive the benefits it now does and England says no we want to have an equal Union where the spend per head in Scotland is equalised to the amount spent in England.
Oh Dear! What then?

Perhaps that's why Alex doesn't want to ask and David is too nice to push him into a corner.

But Alex.  Take care, last week Cameron shows he has 'a pair' when needed so either put up, and call a referendum or shut up and stay in your overpriced Edinburgh palace.