We chose, we choose

This post is mainly aimed at the people of the UK and the leaders of EU countries.

Firstly though, I have to say wow, just wow!  A referendum result that has made me very, very happy.  Even more happier than the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.  Of course there will be  some challenges ahead but we are British, we have overcome challenges before and will do so again.

David Cameron, before he resigned (quit?) said that we are not a nation of quitters and we aren't.  We stick with the right path rather than just taking the easy one.

Anyway...

The people of the UK chose to leave the European Union.  More than 33.5 million of us registered a vote and chose, by a margin of 52:48 to leave.  The majority chose to ignore the merchants of fear and chose to decouple us from the failed European Union project.  We never chose to sign-up to ever political union, we originally chose to join a Common Market but the corporatists and socialists of certain European countries want to become submerged in a political union.  That's their choice - though in typical EU fashion,  their people aren't being asked - but we have chosen a different course.  We wish them well.

Go back to the start of the last paragraph.  The people of the UK chose to leave the European Union.  This was a question put to the whole of the UK and a decision reached by the whole of the UK.  The talk of a second Scottish Independence Referendum, coming from Nicola Sturgeon is anti-democratic and is pure mischief making from her.  I really believe that if she was in a party of three or more enjoying a dinner out and one of the party said 'red or white wine'  and she was in the minority, she would immediately call for her democratic rights be respected and for a new Scottish Independence Referendum to be called.  Opportunist doesn't even come close.

Sturgeon is mischief making.  She knows full well that Foreign Affairs is not a devolved responsibility.  This is a power reserved to the Westminster parliament.  All this talk about asking Brussels to consider an application, from a constituent part of the UK, to join the EU is absolute rubbish.  Typical froth from Bute House.  Sturgeon and her minority devolved government should do what they were elected to do - manage the devolved affairs of Scotland.  They have done a very poor job of that so far - hence why they are now a minority government - but that is what they are there for.  Now is the time for Nicola to shut-up and do her job.

She also knows that the EU will have its hands full in the coming time, trying to make sure that the departure of the UK is achieved in a manner that is mutually acceptable and, perhaps much or most of their focus will be on making sure that no other member country dares to let their population make a choice.  Can't let the democratic will of the people get in the way of the EU project!  

Does anyone seriously think that Spain would let the EU consider, for even a single nano-second, allowing a constituent part of a member country to negotiate its own terms of membership of the EU, while it is still part of its home country?

So we in the UK chose to leave the European Union.  The leaders of the other members states now need to realise that we will also choose, when we leave.  We will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (never voted for by the British people, by the way), when we choose to do so.  We will act in the interests of the British people (all of them, Nicola).  That may not sound very communitaire but there you are.  We chose to regain our long-held freedoms and we will choose the timing for when we get these back.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission can huff and puff all he wants.  One of the first things he needs to learn, post June 23, 2016, is that we chose to no longer pay any heed to his demands.  We will choose, we will not be ordered to do anything by an unelected foreigner.  We had the choice and we chose, freedom from such tyranny.  Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Co. please take note.

David Cameron was elected as a member of the mother of parliaments and the Conservative Party chose him to lead it and therefore to be our  Prime Minister.  His first act, after the June 23 result, was to decide that on behalf of the people of the UK, he chose to delay invoking Article 50, until after his successor has been elected, because he believes that this is the best course of action he can choose for our country.

Some of my fellow-countrymen and women are now complaining about the result of the referendum. They say that younger people voted predominately for Remain while older people voted in similar numbers for Leave.  The argument seems to be that somehow the votes of these younger people should count for me because they will have to live with the consequences longer.  The latter point is true.  Though since they will enjoy the benefits of our regained freedom, I don't really see their point. Anyway a decision was requested and an answer was given.  As a nation (listening Nicola??) we chose to Leave. That's it.  No need for further referendums - I know that this is how the EU has solved its inconvenient referendum results, in the past but we are British and we understand democracy.  We have been at it longer than any other nation and so perhaps that's why we know how it works.

To all those that chose to Leave and to put their well-founded faith in the British people, I say a heart-felt thanks.   We have chosen freedom and our path will now diverge from our European friends.  We wish them bonne chance and gutes reise but we are off somewhere else.

SNP - Wind your neck in!

The SNP aided by the BBC seem to have got above themselves.  They both seem to forget that in September 2014, in a turnout significantly in excess of the 2015 General Election turnout (85% versus 71%) Scottish Independence was soundly rejected by Scottish voters.  The  55% No campaign  beating the the 45% for Yes.

Both also seem to have lost sight of the fact that, while the SNP captured a total of 56 of the 59 seats available within Scotland, they actually gained less than 50% of the votes cast.

Now we have the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, who is not even a member of the UK Parliament, thinking that she can rule the Westminster roost.  Truth is, she is most likely to have trouble controlling her own newly elected Westminster MPs who are acting like an uncouth rabble and are being egged on by Ms Sturgeon's, predecessor Alex Salmond and one will soon have to question if the dual role - Scottish First Minister and SNP Leader are compatible.

Time for some perspective.

Scotland represents less than 10% of the population of the UK, less than 10% of the UK economy and less than 10% of the seats at Westminster.  The SNP popular vote of 1.454 million was dwarfed by UKIP's 3.88 million and even by the Lib Dems 2.41 million - so when it comes to 'speaking for the people' a sense of proportion wouldn't be out of place.  Yes, the SNP gained 56 seats while UKIP only gained 1 and the Lib Dems just 8 and yes that is a reflection of the 'first past the post' system but that is the system that the UK chose to retain, when given a choice. However, as said, the SNP are always a minority party.

Out of courtesy, and, I hope,  only for that reason, David Cameron trooped up to Edinburgh, post election and held talks with Ms Sturgeon about fulfilling the Conservative plans on implementing the Smith Commission.  This is something which, while it represents even greater power for the Holyrood parliament, is actually opposed by Sturgeon - supposedly on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough.  Leave aside that the policy, called Full Fiscal Autonomy, was developed by Scottish politicians, Sturgeon fears FFA.  She fears this (and that is why Cameron must rigorously pursue it), because Sturgeon and the SNP will then be found wanting.  The Scottish economy simply cannot fund the lavish policies that the SNP push, based on its own economy.  It absolutely needs funding from the UK Exchequer.  The loonies that thuggishly follow the SNP  will spout on about Scotland's oil and so on, though they have been (mercifully) quite since the significant post IndyRef  decline in oil prices, but the simple fact is that Scotland needs funding from the UK, indeed, let's not be coy, they need funding from England.

She is also fearful because the SNP are being found out, in their own back-yard.   The SNP controlled parliament at Holyrood has presided over a frightening decline in educational attainment and standards, coupled with a significant reduction in the number of students from poor families, attending university.  We might expect a re-branded and hopefully suitably chastened Scottish Labour Party, along with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, will focus on these and other failings on the already existing devolved powers, when the next Holyrood elections are held, in 2016.

To hear the newly elected SNP Westminster MPs you would think that they have a mandate for governing the UK.  Simple truth is that they don't.  They don't even have a Scottish mandate!  They need to wind in their necks and get down to the real business of representing all of their constituents - those that voted for them and those that, in equal proportion, didn't vote for them.

And while we are on the subject of people losing their sense of proportion, let's be clear.  Scotland had its Independence Referendum and everyone agreed, including Salmond, Sturgeon and the SNP, that this was a once in a generation event.  Now the UK Government is planning to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.  This will be a countrywide referendum and will apply to the whole country and the results will be for the whole country.  If a majority of people in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or even 35 Acacia Avenue, Solihull vote to remain in the EU while the majority vote to exit, then we all exit.  Ms Sturgeon has put forward a warped sense of democracy, as discussed here.

I am sure that the SNP and Yes voters retain a sour taste in their mouth after the IndyRef vote loss but now the SNP need to shut-up and get on with the job that they were elected to do!

Yes for Scotland, No for England and Europe

Do you think that the Conservatives, or more accurately David Cameron and George Osborne have some kind of death wish?

I ask because I find it incomprehensible to understand the politics and policies of the Conservatives towards the Scottish, the English and the British.

On September 18, 2014, the voters in Scotland, in a high turn-out, voted No to Scottish independence by a margin of 55%:45%.  Not a resounding victory for the No campaign but enough to show a clear position.

The Conservative Party are poorly represented, in terms of MPs elected to the Westminster parliament, by Scotland.  Only one Tory MP being elected in the last three elections.  In the Scottish Parliament, the Conservatives have just over 10% of the seats and most of these coming arising from the proportional representation system, deployed in those elections.

Why therefore should the Conservatives be so concerned with Scotland?  I will come back to this in a moment but for now, think of it in cold electoral terms.  Scotland brings next to no electoral benefits to the Conservatives.  On the contrary, it elects a huge swathe of Labour opposition MPs.  Though this seems likely to change to Scottish Nationalist MPs at upcoming General Election, there is a very strong socialist and redistributive streak that runs through SNP policies, so there isn't that much difference between them.

So why are the Conservatives pushing for the devolution of further powers to Scotland's parliament?

Powers that will maybe allow Scotland to have all of the essential facets of nationhood, such as full tax raising and spending power, without the responsibilities that go with them.  The UK will still be the lender of last resort for Scotland and will be the backstop for its profligate spending plans.

As a brief aside, do you notice how quiet the Scottish Nationalists have become on the subject of oil revenues?  They were loud and proud when oil was north of $100 a barrel but we here nary a peep now that oil is south of $80 a barrel.  Is there any brave economist out there who could run the numbers and see what difference a >20% drop in the oil price would do to the SNP's already fanciful accounting?  I keep wondering if the Scots have learned from Darien, that it is always better to have someone to run to when the economic tides turn against you while the English are being led by fools who will allow such an imbalance of responsibilities.

These powers still will not address the fundamental 'West Lothian question'.  Scottish MPs will continue to be elected to Westminster, where they can vote on tax measures related to England, Northern Ireland and Wales and yet they will not be able to vote on matters relating to Scottish taxation.  If a minority Tory government, with a strong and overall English-seat majority wanted to propose tax reductions for middle and higher earners, such measures could be defeated by a coalition of English Labour MPs and their Scottish counter-parts and the SNP.  So the Scots have freedom but not the English.

In what world does this make any sense for the English or represent any notion of fair play?

I know that Conservatives will say that we are a United Kingdom and this is a legitimate response to widely-held Scottish opinion but when will they stop to ask the English?  The Scottish 'tail' is well and truly 'wagging' the English dog!

Then we come to Europe.  Here the Tories are losing ground to UKIP.  Here the Conservatives claim that they are unable to put a referendum before the British people until sometime within 2 1/2 years of the next election.

Think about that.  The Conservatives can push through parliament, in the space of a few months, legislation that fundamentally changes the fabric and constitutional settlement of the  United Kingdom and yet legislation related to the EU must wait.  Consider also, that there is no mandate from the British people, nor even the people of Scotland to push through the proposed changes.  Nothing was mentioned, about giving sweeping or indeed, any extra powers to Scotland, in any of the party manifestos, for the 2010 election.

In their haste, the Conservatives are supported by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems.  Both of these parties are pro-Europe and hope to reap some electoral rewards in Scotland as a result of this unjust settlement (though all opinion poll predictions are that both of these parties will go the way of the Tories in Scotland)

I believe that the British public know that all of the main parties want to stay in the European Union.  That all will campaign on that basis in any eventual referendum.  I also believe that the British people want to have a say in the matter.  It is perhaps a sign of the times that the people of Scotland can get a vote on issues like independence but the English cannot.  That Scotland can get local tax raising powers but the English cannot.  Perhaps it is a realisation that given the real powers that actually rest with the European Union, any such local powers, pale into insignificance.  What does it matter what taxes are raised in Scotland, England or the United Kingdom, if un-elected Eurocrats can simply decide that the UK must pay more funds to feed the EU beast?  And that there is nothing that can be done by the Scots, the English or the British to counter the position (and please do not try to use George Osborne's  decidedly dodgy accounting tricks concerning the £1.7Bn, that was recently demanded).

Only UKIP is offering an immediate referendum on EU membership and yet the likelihood of a UKIP parliamentary majority is very slim.  They can damage Conservatives and Labour but are highly unlikely to be the majority party nor to hold the balance of power.  My sense is that UKIP will damage the Tories on Europe and immigration and will damage Labour on immigration.  Labour's (pro) policy on the EU is not something that they really push, though I think that this will be under deeper scrutiny, in the coming months.

So a system of an united governance, for the United Kingdom, that took more than 300 years to develop, can be fundamentally changed in the space of a few months, without the say-so of the people of all of the United Kingdom and yet an alien system, and make no mistake,  the EU's definition of democracy - deals done behind the scenes by un-elected Eurocrats - is alien to British ideas of democracy, cannot be even discussed let alone changed until after years of wrangling.

Forget all the talk about fighting for Britain in Europe, that comes from the mouths of politicians.  That is at best just a soundbite and at worst an outright lie.  Britons fighting in Europe ended in 1945 and since then our democratic freedoms have continuously been whittled away with a rapid acceleration after 1975.

If David Cameron and George Osborne cared a fig for the United Kingdom or even just the Conservative Party, they would put legislation for an EU Referendum, before Parliament immediately.  This would take the wind out of the sails of UKIP and would force Labour and the Lib Dems to show their true colours.  Most importantly, it would give the people of Britain a voice on an issue of truly fundamental importance.

We don't need any fancy propositions or crazy and undemocratic notions - as for example spouted by Nicola Sturgeon, here - a simple Yes or No to continued membership will suffice.  If the result is a Yes, then the strength of the majority will settle things.  If a very strong Yes, then nothing more to be said, Britain succumbs to the EU Superstate.  If the Yes majority is more narrow - say 10% or less, then Britain seeks a re-negotiation of the terms of membership.  If the majority is for No, then we leave the EU, within 12-18 months.

I am not usually one to give out health tips but if you are hoping for a referendum on the EU, don't hold your breath.  Unless UKIP do really break the mould of British politics and achieve a significant breakthrough in 2015, we will see no change in British/EU relations until after the 2020 election and by then it may be too late.

Very depressing that we have come to this and especially so that it is at the hands of the Conservatives.

After the vote.

We are a couple of days away from the result of the referendum on Scottish Independence.   The opinion polls suggest a close result likely to favour the No campaign.

In recent weeks there has been talk of David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, being called upon to resign if Scotland votes yes.  The people that make these calls offer no logical reason for why he should do that, other than he has ‘lost’ Scotland.  That is complete poppycock!  As a Unionist, and Englishman, I fully understand the limited participation of Cameron  in the debate.  When he has spoken it is with an obvious and deep-seated passion for our United Kingdom.  Let’s be clear though, the Conservatives are not well liked in Scotland.  Indeed, in some parts they are loathed.  A Scottish friend, who sits in the No camp, said that the less Cameron speaks on the referendum, the better, as his Etonian pronunciation just pushes the ‘don’t knows’ into the Yes camp.  I see his point and it is a sad reflection of the current debate that he may be right.  There’s a part of me though that thinks that as the campaign draws to a close, some people of Scotland are seeing (hearing?) past the voice and listening to the message.  This is a message of our shared history  and a strong desire to have the United Kingdom  continue to lead the world in so many fields.

I think though, that whatever the outcome, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon his deputy, must stand down on Friday morning.  They have led a very divisive campaign.  Oftentimes, they have either wittingly or unwittingly unleashed the thuggish element which inhabits the nationalist fringes (North and South of the border) . 

They have  given a glimpse of what life would be like in  Scottish Nationalist Scotland – Independent or not.  A State controlled media, for example.  One that pushes-out the party line according to wee Eck.  Salmond became furious with Nick Robinson, of the BBC, because Robinson has dared to question some of the more outrageous statements made by Salmond and Co.   Bad boy  Nick – go sit on the naughty step!      It was perhaps telling that Salmond’s outburst against the BBC came just after his independence campaign was solidly endorsed by North Korea’s Supreme Leader – a fully paid-up member of the ‘It’s my country to do with as I want and don’t dare question me’ club.   In Pyongyang one can’t say that the emperor has no clothes but is still possible, just, in Edinburgh. 

Salmond and Sturgeon have taken Scotland down a very divisive road and pitted neighbor against neighbor.  Does anyone believe these two have the ability to bring the country together, from Friday?  These are little people with little minds.  I’ll admit Salmond has a way with words but throughout this campaign they have not managed to craft an answer to the fundamental questions that have been posed.  Ask a question Salmond or Sturgeon don’t like  and back they come with a non-answer or an accusation that ‘you are in the pay of the distant Westminster elite’.  Ask about the Scottish NHS and the accusations that it would not be safe with a No vote and you get all the rubbish about privatization and nothing about the fact that Health is a devolved responsibility and so currently and will continue to sit with Holyrood and not London!  Oh, and by the way, the NHS was established, ever before devolution by those ‘Westminster elite types!’

So come Friday whatever the outcome,  Salmond and Sturgeon could do one last decent act for Scotland, by tendering their own resignations.   They have said nothing, in their years in power, to indicate that they have the spirit to heal the divisions that their hubris has brought about.  

Scotland's turmoil

The people of Scotland are around 40 days away from making a momentous decision - to remain part of the United Kingdom or to become an independent nation. The referendum question is straightforward enough but as with such things, the devil is in the detail.

In this case, there are more than a few unanswered questions and the recent TV debate between the leader of the pro-independence Scottish Nationalists, First Minister Alex Salmond and the leader of the Unionist Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling, did nothing to resolve the key ones.

I will declare an interest at the outset. I sincerely hope that the Scottish people vote to remain within the United Kingdom.  So if my comments seem somewhat slanted you will perhaps understand.

I live overseas and didn't manage to view the debate but by most all accounts, Alastair Darling and the Vote No campaign, won the debate in terms of people's pre and post views on how they would vote.  Certainly amongst the 15% or so that are 'undecideds'.

The reason for the 'No' victory is, I believe, due to the lack of answers, from Alex Salmond, on key issues.

What currency will Scotland have after independence?  Alex Salmond is insistent that it will be the existing Pound Sterling.  The UK political parties, in a rare show of unanimity have said that this will not be possible.  That the UK will not enter into the required currency union, with a post-independent Scotland.  You might think that the UK is being petty and peevish by such actions.  Maybe even that they are a poor loser, however, this is the stated policy of all of the major UK parties.  We know that politicians usually have only a limited attachment to the promises that they make but I think that the very public and very united approach that they have taken to this one, would mean that reneging on it would be very difficult.  Critically though, as I posted here , the Scottish Nationalists have no Plan B.

Alex Salmond has pinned his colours to the mast and said that Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  That's it.  All the ramifications of this?  Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  What kind of independence is this, when economic policy is effectively decided by another country?  Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  How will Scotland use the Pound Sterling - or as Salmond now likes to call it, the Scottish Pound! - when the rest of the UK says no? Scotland will use the Pound Sterling!!

Another unanswered question which, to my mind is inextricably linked to the currency question is membership of the European Union.  Comments from European Commission leaders and European political leaders have not endorsed, for one minute, the Independence campaign's assertion that a newly independent Scotland would automatically be a full member of the EU.  Some have gone further and indicated that Scotland would need to apply for membership and go through the lengthy process of candidacy.   What is clear though, is that any new member of the EU is expected to adopt the Euro currency so where would that leave Alex Salmond's   'Scotland will use the Pound Sterling' assertion?

The third unanswered question, also linked to currency, relates to debt.  As in how much debt would the newly independent take-on from the United Kingdom.  Most pundits expect that it would be somewhere in the region of 8-10% of the UK National Debt as these numbers represent the relative share of UK population and GDP.  When Czechoslovakia split-up in 1992, population was the basis used as the measure.  this doesn't seem unreasonable.  Speaking of Czechoslovakia, they too had the currency dilemma.  Their solution was to continue with the existing  currency - score one for Alex Salmond - however, within a matter of months, two currencies were developed and the initial equality of exchange rate, soon fell away.

Linked to debt is the question of future liabilities.  This mainly relates to state benefits such as state pension.  These are largely unfunded and so paid out of current national income.  Scotland has something of a demographic time-bomb with its population aging being a greater proportion of the overall population, than occurs in the rest of the United Kingdom.   Does this get taken into account?  It certainly doesn't seem to have been considered by the pro-Independence politicians, who promise ever greener pastures and higher pensions in the free Scotland utopia that will come to be!

These are critical questions that need to be answered.  I doubt that they will be, during the coming six weeks - Alex Salmond will continue to rely on the 'heart' ruling the 'head' and winning because of that.  I sense though that the consistency of the No vote, in polls - always more than 50% - is because people, while liking the idea of an independent Scotland, realise that the actual notion has just not been properly thought through.  I suspect this is because, on an economic basis, the arguments simply don't stack-up - that Scotland is better-off, financially speaking, as a member of the United Kingdom.

Three other things to think about, this morning.

You will notice, after Salmond's less than stellar performance in the TV debate, that people in the Yes campaign are starting to distance themselves and the campaign, from Salmond.  Things are being said such as 'Salmond isn't the leader of the Vote Yes campaign' and so on.  Complete hogwash!  Say what you like about Salmond but please don't try to kid people that he has been anything other than at the forefront of the campaign for an independent Scotland for the last 30+ years.  And, frankly, he has been resolute in pushing the independence agenda.  Alex Salmond and the Scottish Nationalist Party continue to lead the Vote Yes campaign and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

One worrying thing that is now on the horizon is the suggestion that the UK Parliament will grant extra powers over taxation and some other matters, to the devolved parliament in Scotland, should Scotland vote to remain in the United Kingdom.  This is absolutely the wrong way to proceed.  It is wrong to seek to bribe the people of Scotland and it is wrong to continue to penalise the people of England.  Post the 2015 General Election, the so called Barnett Formula, which is used to apportion government spending, must be changed and Scotland cannot be 'ring-fenced' from the effects of such change.

I posted here  about the possibility that the Shetland Islands might seek independence from Scotland and take-away with it, all of that oil wealth that the mainland so desperately needs.  What then for an independent Scotland.

Scotland should vote No!



 

Scotland's currency

Once again, I return to the subject of what currency Scotland will use, if the Scottish people vote Yes in the upcoming referendum.

It is no good expecting an answer from Scottish Nationalist politicians.  Here is a link to a BBC interview with Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy First Minister of Scotland.  Watch and listen to how many times she is asked if there is a Plan B.  http://bbc.in/1lQIVm9

The reason that a Plan B is needed is because all of the leading UK-wide parties have stated their opposition to an independent Scotland entering into a currency union with the rump UK.  Nationalist politicians insist that this is just 'bluster and bullying' from Westminster and so they have no need for a plan to face this potential situation.  However, surely prudence suggests that it would be an idea to have some kind of policy ready just in case it isn't, don't you think?  I realise that the honesty of politicians is usually suspect!  Their keeping of promises is not one of their strongest points.  However, surely the SNP must put something in front of the Scottish people that says 'we do not believe that the rest of the UK will not allow us to enter into a currency union but if that is the case, then this is what we will do......'

Too much to ask?

Of course, this all pre-supposes that an independent Scotland will have the authority to make such a decision, anyway.

The SNP have made a big play of their belief that an independent Scotland will be able to remain or automatically become a member of the European Union.  Let's suppose that this is valid (though the Scottish government refuses to publish the legal advice it has received (presumably received on behalf of the Scottish people?)).  Why would the European Union allow any new member the choice of what currency they can follow?  Does anyone seriously believe that the EU wouldn't simply say, like they do to aspiring members, you must adopt the Euro as your currency?  Why wouldn't they?

I would suggest that no matter what the rump UK says, the EU will demand that Scotland adopt the Euro. The relentless advance of the Euro-project requires this.

I suspect that the EU, while making this an absolute condition, will not set themselves as the 'lender of last resort' for Scotland.  That seems to be what the SNP wants to get from a currency union - the remaining parts of the UK providing a financial guarantee for Scotland's debt.

As the referendum date draws nearer, we can rightly expect to see more and more questions being asked of the Nationalists and answers not being forthcoming, just bluster and bullying.

I am in favour of the Union and opposed to Scotland gaining 'independence' but have become reconciled to the need for a referendum.  However, the post referendum period also needs to be addressed.  If the answer is Yes, then apportion debt and assets between the two countries and separate.  If the answer in No, then no further concessions or granting of additional powers to the devolved government  are to be given.  Also, the independence question needs to be put away for at least 25 years  - enough already!

HS2, NIMBYs and France

Given the Government's decision to go ahead with the HS2, would it be too much to ask that we follow the example of the French.

That is, we get the thing done as a national priority and not just through to Birmingham but on to Manchester and Leeds. 

One of the things I admire about the French is that once they decide, at a national level, on a grand projet, they get on with it.  According to reports, the legislation for the initial phase, through to Birmingham, won't come before parliament before 2014. 

Honestly!  It would be quicker to get a referendum on Scottish independence!

Wherever and whatever route is used, someone will be affected and so will someone's view.  Sorry (not really though) but that's the price of progress and I really think we do need to progress.

Some of the opposition to the proposal suggest that the current congestion on trains could be eased if more carriages were added to existing trains and platforms extended.  Well let's do that as well.  The indications or proposal suggests that the first phase won't be complete before 2026, anyway!

I am really not sure I understand why it will take 14 years to build a railway line and yet we got the whole London Olympics site built in less than 7 years!

Let's get this done and done now.

Cameron and Co need to put the national interest before party interest and tell the constituencies through which the line goes, this is the way it is!

One further point though.  It is my understanding that one reason the French manage to get their grand projet through is that they don't penny-pinch on compensation and they accommodate those that they effect - so build under-passes for farmers etc.  In other words they buy-off a lot of the moaners!