In a welcome and slightly surprising development, the Campaign has today been contacted by an English activist who with a number of colleagues has decided to advocate the cause of English independence by handing out leaflets (with text drawn from this website) on the streets and by speaking to community groups in England.
The Campaign welcomes this news.
England's independence needs to be associated with the call of her great people demanding both an English Parliament and our national independence.
Looks like the information and advocacy on the Campaign's website is finding resonance on some English streets and communities in England at laest, even at this early stage within a week of the launch of the Campaign.
Good news - share it!
Popular Posts
-
In a welcome and slightly surprising development, the Campaign has today been contacted by an English activist who with a number of colleagu...
-
Here is a good article taken from The Scotsman dealing with the Scottish treatment of English students. MPs look to changing law in bid to s...
-
The very same day that the Campaign for English Independence is launched, BBC Scotland reports the results of opinion polls claiming to prov...
-
Some good news to share. The Campaign for English Independence (CEI) will be revived after a pause of some months and we hope will now ...
-
In an admission that will not endear us to the British elites, the Campaign for English Independence will happily work with reasoned support...
-
Copied below ia an article from the Times which we think worth copying. Solo Scotland can’t have our Armed Forces, warns Fox Liam ...
-
2 August 2011 Last updated at 14:22 Independent Wales would be 39% richer, claims ex-MP Adam Price said he would like to...
-
Does Scotland have too much to lose from independence? By Anne McElvoy Radio 4, Analysis ...
-
The SNP government had managed to pass legislation that Scottish sixteen years olds will be entitled to vote in the forthcoming Scottish Ind...
-
‘Sir John Major dresses in tartan for devolution argument’ Text of BBC’s Nick Robinson on article on 9 July 2011 In a brief pause from th...
Sunday 10 July 2011
BBC article - 'Sir John Major dresses in tartan for devolution argument'
‘Sir John Major dresses in tartan for devolution argument’
Text of BBC’s Nick Robinson on article on 9 July 2011
In a brief pause from the hacking furore I've just been reading a significant speech being delivered by the man who once declared that he was fighting the "Battle of Britain" and warned that there were just "72 hours to save the Union".
In a rare intervention into politics, former Prime Minister Sir John Major calls for the Scottish Parliament to be given powers to control everything except foreign affairs, defence and the economy.
Sir John warned against the dangers of devolution before the 1997 election. Today he calls for what some call "devo max".
If you are wondering why the former Tory leader's dressing in tartan, he explains that in return the English (and, of course, the Conservative Party) would see the end of the hated Barnett formula which gives Scotland more money to spend and a cut in the number of Scottish (usually Labour) MPs.
This may not seem like a live issue today, but it will be in the run-up to the next election. Scotland's re-elected First Minister Alex Salmond has always believed that the Tories were most likely to give him at least some of what he wanted.
This is how Sir John puts it:
"The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap - unless the issue is resolved.
"The union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.
'Shrinking military power'
"Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy? Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?
"My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly - bad for Scotland and bad for England - but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot - and should not - deny them."
Sir John's speech to the Ditchley Foundation also calls for appointed MPs - that's right, MPs not Lords - to bring expertise into Parliament, predicts that developments in Europe are likely to drive Britain further away from the EU and warns that the country's political classes are too obsessed by short-term politics and too complacent about the signs that the country is in long-term decline.
"In terms of GDP, the UK is the sixth most wealthy country in the world. But our national balance sheet carries many liabilities. Our physical infrastructure is old. Our health service is creaking. Whilst the best of our education - especially higher education - is world-class, some of it is unforgivably awful," he says.
"We are up to our ears in debt. The Exchequer is empty. The gold is gone. The post-dated cheques are accumulating interest. We are over-taxed. We have an under-class: poorly educated, poorly housed and unmotivated.
"We are no longer an Empire, nor will be ever again. We are a shrinking military power. By choice, and with majority public approval, we are semi-detached members of the EU. And even America - for so long our closest ally who generally sees the world as we do - is turning her face to the East, as self-interest determines she must."
The Campaign for English independence had the following comment (no. 54) published by the BBC in the comments to this article:
Andrew Constantine
9th July 2011 - 20:37
9th July 2011 - 20:37
On 4 July last week a group of English patriots launched The Campaign for English Independence. Sir John is much too late in his intervention. The present British Union constitution is now just a mechanism for the British elites to avoid accountability. So 'Yes to English Independence' now. After all, why should England the mother of all Parliaments be denied her own English Parliament?
New National Musuem of Art for Wales.
The Guardian on Friday 8 July as well as other newspapers reported the following major Arts story: Complete Welsh collection goes on display in National Museum of Art- Ten-year project opens with masters on show and special exhibition including work by Freud, Hockney and Whiteread
- guardian.co.uk,
- National Library - there isn't one
- National Gallery - there isn't one
- National Museum - there isn't one
- National Portrait Gallery - and there isn't one of those either.
Unlliw, an installation by Carwyn Evans, sits alongside a 19th-century landscape at the National Museum of Art in Cardiff. Photograph: Gareth Phillips for the Guardian.
Familiar favourites by Renoir, Cézanne and Monet are there, but also freshly minted pieces such a jagged stone circle created by Richard Long that two weeks ago was nothing more than a pile of rejected hunks of slate in a north Wales quarry. All are being brought together at the National Museum of Art, which opens on Saturday at the National Museum Cardiff. For the first time the full range of Wales's art collection, from Tudor portraits to esoteric pieces of contemporary art, can be seen under one roof. The 10-year project, costing £6.5m, has involved the refurbishment of old galleries and the creation of six new spaces. Pieces that have long languished in storerooms have been hauled out and paintings and sculptures that were jammed together have been given more room.
The Campaign for English Independence congratulates the Welsh nation on the opening of its new National Museum of Art and notes that it is well overdue as Scotland has had its equivalent National Gallery of Scotland since 24 March 1859. Scotland has also had its own very own Scottish National Portrait Gallery since 1889.
The Campaign for English Independence notes that although England provides some 84% of the total population of the UK, the state of its own national instiutions for the Arts is as follows:
Decision made by News International to close down NOTW
The decision by US-based News International to close down the NOTW is interesting in many respects*, but I wish to focus here on why it's a classic illustration of why an independent England should want to ensure that all major businesses operating in England should be English owned.
For in effect, a US corporation News International has decided - without consulting England, or its English workforce - to close down the profitable and important NOTW business based in England ... because it suits the immediate interests of the US corporation.
You have to ask would France or China or India allow a US corporation to even buy or own (let alone close down in an instant - without any detailed discussions with the national government) a major French, Chinese, or Indian newspaper?
England urgently needs to have an English-owned and managed media business that can take on and challenge the BBC's near monopoly of TV and internet news.
It clearly should not be News International or any other foreign player that is allowed to have this crucially important role in our national life.
* but the biassed British courts' defence of the rich and powerful via British libel laws and their being under British political control precludes discussion here of certain matters
For in effect, a US corporation News International has decided - without consulting England, or its English workforce - to close down the profitable and important NOTW business based in England ... because it suits the immediate interests of the US corporation.
You have to ask would France or China or India allow a US corporation to even buy or own (let alone close down in an instant - without any detailed discussions with the national government) a major French, Chinese, or Indian newspaper?
England urgently needs to have an English-owned and managed media business that can take on and challenge the BBC's near monopoly of TV and internet news.
It clearly should not be News International or any other foreign player that is allowed to have this crucially important role in our national life.
* but the biassed British courts' defence of the rich and powerful via British libel laws and their being under British political control precludes discussion here of certain matters
Thursday 7 July 2011
Interesting article from the Western Mail dated 28 June 2011
Peter Hain warns banning Welsh MPs from English votes will ‘destroy’ Union
by Martin Shipton, Western Mail Jun 28 2011
The UK could be “destroyed” as a political entity (Edit: Yes!) if the Westminster coalition Government presses ahead with plans to bar Welsh and Scottish MPs from voting on English issues, Peter Hain has warned.
The Shadow Welsh Secretary said such a move would throw up constitutional problems of a kind that have not been confronted since the 19th century.
As well as potentially leading to the break-up of the Union, Mr Hain said that in his view it would certainly rule out a future Prime Minister coming from Wales or Scotland.
He also feared it could lead to a situation where the Conservatives were asked to form a government even when Labour held a majority of seats at Westminster.
Last week Scottish Office Minister David Mundell confirmed in the House of Commons that later this year the Government intends to announce the setting-up of a commission to look into the so-called “West Lothian question”.
Former Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who at the time represented West Lothian, claimed in the 1970s that devolution would lead to an unsustainable position where MPs in Scotland and Wales were voting on matters that only affected England, while MPs representing English constituencies would have no say on devolved matters like education and health in Scotland and Wales.
Since Wales voted Yes in March to give the National Assembly full law-making powers, there have been increasingly shrill calls from English Tory MPs for the Government to address the West Lothian question.
Mr Hain said: “The implications of this cannot be overestimated. I think it would hobble the Union, and possibly destroy it.
“This is a blatant fix by the English Tories. They know the only hope they have of winning consistently is to separate Wales and Scotland from England.
“The whole principle that underpins the Parliamentary system in the UK is that all MPs have equal status. If Welsh and Scottish MPs were not allowed to vote on matters that superficially seem only to relate to England, that principle would no longer apply and MPs representing seats in Wales and Scotland would have an inferior, second class status.
“If that happened, there would be no question of any MP from Wales or Scotland ever becoming Prime Minister again. There would be no more Lloyd Georges or Jim Callaghans. This wouldn’t just affect Labour politicians – if the brightest and best Conservative MP happened to represent a seat in Wales, they would never be acceptable as a leader of their party.”
Mr Hain has been thinking through the consequences of another scenario that was a possible outcome of ending the ability of Welsh and Scottish MPs to vote on an equal basis with colleagues from England.
He said: “After a general election, the Queen asks the leader of the largest party if he or she can command a majority in the House of Commons. As things stand, that is quite straightforward. But if Welsh and Scottish MPs were unable to vote on matters affecting England, the situation could be more complex. It is conceivable that Labour could win a general election, but with the Tories holding a majority of seats in England.
“If that happened, the Queen would probably be advised to invite the leader of the Conservative Party to form a government on the basis that he or she was better placed to get a legislative programme through. That would obviously put a huge strain on the Union and make it more likely to break up.”
Mr Hain said he accepted that since the Scottish Parliament and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland had been set up, Britain had a form of asymmetrical devolution. But he said it was unreasonable to conclude that MPs from outside England should not vote on England-only issues: “It’s far more complicated than that, as the issue over student tuition fees has shown. Tripling student fees in England has had major consequences for Wales.”
Mr Hain’s preferred solution to the West Lothian question would be to create regional administrations in England together with ministers and committees of the House of Commons to deal with regional issues.
London now has its own Assembly and elected mayor, but a referendum held in 2004 to set up a regional Assembly in the north east of England resulted in a heavy No vote. Nevertheless, Mr Hain said: “The problem was that the proposed Assembly would have had no real powers and was seen by many as something of a Mickey Mouse body. I’m pretty sure that if there was another referendum now for an Assembly with proper powers over education, health and economic development, the people of the north east would vote Yes.”
Mr Hain said he was opposed to the idea of an English Parliament: “There are around 50 million people in England and 10 million in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. If there were a Parliament covering the whole of England, we would have a very unbalanced constitutional settlement that in my view would be unsustainable.
“I am extremely concerned that David Cameron has a ruthless agenda that is not about what is best for Britain, but what is best for the Conservative Party. They want to reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 seats because that does maximum damage to Labour. If they had proposed cutting its size by 100, many Tory MPs’ seats would have gone too. In pursuing this agenda, the Tory-led Government risks breaking up the UK.”
Mr Hain pointed out that in 1886, William Gladstone’s Irish Home Rule Bill would have removed Irish MPs from the House of Commons altogether. But this would have led to a situation where people in Ireland were taxed but had no representation. It split the Liberal Party and was thrown out. Seven years later, Mr Gladstone proposed another Bill that would have barred MPs from Ireland from voting on issues that concerned only Britain. It too was defeated, and there have been no attempts since to limit the voting ability of some MPs.
A Wales Office spokesman said: “This is a complex issue which was largely ignored by the Labour Party when they were in Government.
“This Government, however, is committed to establishing a commission later this year to consider the West Lothian question so that all issues can be properly considered.”
Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/06/28/peter-hain-warns-banning-welsh-mps-from-english-votes-will-destroy-union-91466-28952850/#ixzz1RQyRwlIs
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The Campaign for English Independence notes that not having to listen to Peter Hain (MP for the Welsh constituency of Neath) may for some be one of the more attractive benefits to be gained by Indepdence for England....
Wednesday 6 July 2011
CEI comments on the House of Lords debate in July 1997 (see previous post)
Some points worth discussing on their British elites Lordships' speeches as quoted in the previous post.
(i) I think we know of a very good reason why the Lords were so reluctant to bring to public notice questions of nationality and ethnicity!
The results of Tom Wyatt's research on the home nation origins of peers is proving fascinating and we will publish it on the CEI site as soon as possible.
(ii) The peers are fussing in this debate about which Scots should be allowed to vote in the proposed referendum on Labour's Scottish devolution proposals. Here is a matter, some of them say, affecting the constitution of the UK and it should not matter whether you are a Scot still living in Scotland or are living say, in England.
Yes, but!
The peers were right in noting that Scottish devolution would affect the constitution of the UK and that raises a central issue - as the subject of the referendum affected the constitution of the UK, then surely all those living in the UK as UK citizens should have been allowed to vote?
The reason why the British elites have given a series of referenda from the 1970s onwards to Scotland and Wales on matters of devolution that affect the entire UK constitution, but deliberately excluded the people of England from voting in any of these referanda, goes to the very heart of the corrupt system of British government.
Devolution to the other three home nations of the UK (but not extended to England, with its 84% of the UK population) was in reality about the British elites wishing to preserve their grip on office and power, and avoiding the threat to both, which would arise if they were accountable to an English Parliament.
(iii) The new Scottish government is now proposing to bring forward towards the end of the five year term of the new Scottish Parliament their long awaited referendum on whether the Scottish people are in favour of independence.
But under the Scottish devolution settlement enacted by the British Parliament, constitutional issues are a reserved matter for Westminster.
Despite this very clear constitutional position, British First Minister David Donald Cameron's British Government has given way to Prime Minister Alex Salmond and it will be the latter's Scottish government that will decide the timing and even the wording of the Scottish independence referendum.
The result of this prposed Scottish independence referendum may not just be to change the constitution of the UK, but to actually abolish the UK. I know that put out like it sounds too extrordinary (and too exciting...) to believe, but that is what it is about.
Yup, very the survival or the abolition of the UK will be decided by those five million or so people living in Scotland, and the role of the 52 million people in England will be as mere onlooker, viewing on their television pictures of Scots voting.
(iv) The day when all the people of England are entitled to vote on all constitutional matters that affect them cannot come too soon! For that to happen, we will need of course to have thrown out the British elites from their present rule of England, and have brought about English Independence.
(v) Do not get misunderstand us in the Campaign for English Independence when we speak of Scotland please.
We in the CEI are sincerely 100% delighted for the people of Scotland that they will get their once in a lifetime - in fact their once in over 300 years - opportunity to put the Scottish nation on a sustainable and proper footing.
We want the Scottish people to vote 'Yes' to Scottish independence and in overwhelming numbers and we would then wish Scotland every success in building a prosperous and successful Scottish nation state.
Just that we find that the British elites' marginalisation of England and her people unacceptable.
(vi) In typing the previous post, I mis-spelt 'Westminster' as 'Westmonster'. Mmmmmm.....
(i) I think we know of a very good reason why the Lords were so reluctant to bring to public notice questions of nationality and ethnicity!
The results of Tom Wyatt's research on the home nation origins of peers is proving fascinating and we will publish it on the CEI site as soon as possible.
(ii) The peers are fussing in this debate about which Scots should be allowed to vote in the proposed referendum on Labour's Scottish devolution proposals. Here is a matter, some of them say, affecting the constitution of the UK and it should not matter whether you are a Scot still living in Scotland or are living say, in England.
Yes, but!
The peers were right in noting that Scottish devolution would affect the constitution of the UK and that raises a central issue - as the subject of the referendum affected the constitution of the UK, then surely all those living in the UK as UK citizens should have been allowed to vote?
The reason why the British elites have given a series of referenda from the 1970s onwards to Scotland and Wales on matters of devolution that affect the entire UK constitution, but deliberately excluded the people of England from voting in any of these referanda, goes to the very heart of the corrupt system of British government.
Devolution to the other three home nations of the UK (but not extended to England, with its 84% of the UK population) was in reality about the British elites wishing to preserve their grip on office and power, and avoiding the threat to both, which would arise if they were accountable to an English Parliament.
(iii) The new Scottish government is now proposing to bring forward towards the end of the five year term of the new Scottish Parliament their long awaited referendum on whether the Scottish people are in favour of independence.
But under the Scottish devolution settlement enacted by the British Parliament, constitutional issues are a reserved matter for Westminster.
Despite this very clear constitutional position, British First Minister David Donald Cameron's British Government has given way to Prime Minister Alex Salmond and it will be the latter's Scottish government that will decide the timing and even the wording of the Scottish independence referendum.
The result of this prposed Scottish independence referendum may not just be to change the constitution of the UK, but to actually abolish the UK. I know that put out like it sounds too extrordinary (and too exciting...) to believe, but that is what it is about.
Yup, very the survival or the abolition of the UK will be decided by those five million or so people living in Scotland, and the role of the 52 million people in England will be as mere onlooker, viewing on their television pictures of Scots voting.
(iv) The day when all the people of England are entitled to vote on all constitutional matters that affect them cannot come too soon! For that to happen, we will need of course to have thrown out the British elites from their present rule of England, and have brought about English Independence.
(v) Do not get misunderstand us in the Campaign for English Independence when we speak of Scotland please.
We in the CEI are sincerely 100% delighted for the people of Scotland that they will get their once in a lifetime - in fact their once in over 300 years - opportunity to put the Scottish nation on a sustainable and proper footing.
We want the Scottish people to vote 'Yes' to Scottish independence and in overwhelming numbers and we would then wish Scotland every success in building a prosperous and successful Scottish nation state.
Just that we find that the British elites' marginalisation of England and her people unacceptable.
(vi) In typing the previous post, I mis-spelt 'Westminster' as 'Westmonster'. Mmmmmm.....
Tom Wyatt's researches about the House of Lords
The CEI Chairman, Tom Wyatt, is researching various matters related to the House of Lords in the British elites Parliament at Westminster. Tom came across the records of a Lords debate in July 1997 when various Scottish peers were proposing changes to the Blair Scottish Referendum Bill to allow Scots living outside Scotland to vote on the proposed devolution offer to be made from London. I copy below part of the Hansard report and embolden some interesting points.
Lord Sewel: I remind the Committee that these amendments seek to allow Scottish and Welsh born people living elsewhere in the United Kingdom to vote at the referendums regardless of where they are registered to vote in the United Kingdom. By definition, that brings into play concepts of nationality or ethnicity and we cannot turn our face away from that--that somehow being born in a place carries some right to vote for the government of that country no matter how long you have been away from that country.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord accept that being born in a place does not merely affect nationality but affects domicile? If he does not, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will confirm it to him. What we are concerned with here is people who were born in Scotland and therefore have Scottish domicile--not Scottish nationality.
Lord Sewel: I understand that it may, in that one can have domicile of origin; but one can also have domicile of choice as well. That is an important distinction. For the lay person the fact is that the amendment would carry a heavy nationalist overlay. That is something no part of the House would wish to encourage in any way, shape or form.
If place of birth were to be a deciding factor in having a vote about the future governmental arrangements of a country one could soon get to total absurdities. I understand that Sir Cliff Richard was born in India. I understand that we are soon to be joined by a former captain of the England cricket team who was similarly born in India. If place of birth is important, can the claim really be made that people who have been born in one country but left at a very early age--I am in the same category in that I left the country I was born in, England, at a very early age--should have a continuing right to have a say in the arrangements for the government of that country? That is a difficult argument to sustain. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, was right when she said that where you are born should neither qualify you nor disqualify you from voting in this type of referendum. That must surely be right.
As the debate has gone on it has been clear that what I accept may well have been a well-intentioned amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, somehow to give some sense of ownership to people who are Scots of what is happening in Scotland would produce immense difficulties. There is the difficulty referred to by one of my noble friends of what should happen if there were a referendum about Northern Ireland. Would it mean that everyone who was born in Northern Ireland should have a vote in that referendum? We would go down a very dangerous and perilous path if we go down the route advocated by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Butterfield: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am concerned because as I understand it American citizens born in America but living abroad can vote in the American presidential election. Furthermore, American citizens living abroad have to pay tax to the American people. I cannot quite make that fit together with what the noble Lord is saying about eligibility to vote in a referendum. I have not thought deeply about this but I know that Americans can vote from overseas in the election of their president. They are taking part in the government of their country.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, will forgive me, perhaps he will consult the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, about the damage done by the American concept of extra-territoriality. It is a road I do not think we want to go down.
Lord Sewel: I cannot add anything more to the comments of the noble Earl. We have to decide what are the best arrangements for dealing with an internal problem in the United Kingdom, which is the move towards devolved government within the United Kingdom. That is the point we have to resolve. We ought to keep the concept of nationality and ethnicity well out of it because in our country, above all countries, that is a particularly dangerous and perilous path.
There is another point. The central register that the proposal would imply would be the most monstrous bureaucratic nightmare. How would it be set up? One would somehow have to verify place of birth and residency. There would have to be checks on birth certificates. There would be a requirement either to have polling stations throughout the United Kingdom or to have a totally massive postal voting system. We would have an enormous bureaucratic exercise which would break under its own internal contradictions.
I would not make the claim that the amendment was moved out of any sense of mischief. I am sure it was not. I am sure the intention was to generate a wider sense of ownership in a Scottish parliament. However, the way chosen, resurrecting the idea of nationality and ethnicity, which is central as soon as one starts using the definition of place of birth or country of birth as a qualifier, would be an extremely dangerous course of action. I strongly urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to put a short point arising from the Minister's remarks. If the Bill remains
in its present form I would ask the Government to refrain from referring to "the Scottish people". It will not be the Scottish people who are being asked to give their views in the referendum; it will be the residents of Scotland at a particular time. I am quite happy that that should be so--there are a great many difficulties--but the Government should not go around saying that it is the will of the Scottish people or that the Scottish people have determined something or other. That is false. Then to go on to say that it is "the settled will of the Scottish people" makes it even worse. Of course a referendum based on the electorate in Scotland--the latest register--gives a good view of opinion in Scotland. But do not call it the will of the Scottish people.
Lord Sewel: I have toyed with that one myself on many occasions. The formulation I tend to favour is "the people of Scotland".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for saying that he treated the amendment as being well intentioned. I have to say that chuckles from noble Lords on the Benches to my right may suggest that they do not entirely agree with that compliment. I accept it in the way it was intended.
In putting forward the amendment I feel that I was speaking for a number of people born in Scotland and Wales who no longer live there. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, suggested that the franchise chosen is perfectly acceptable to everyone. I suggest that it is not. However, I accept that there might be certain bureaucratic problems in taking forward the amendments I propose. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and members of the United Kingdom armed forces and their spouses who were born in Scotland and who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: In a way this is a subset of the previous amendment. Amendment No. 13 is grouped with Amendment No. 35, to which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will speak.
I outlined the position at Second Reading. It concerns those Scottish members of the Armed Forces who find themselves in a position where they are commanded to go with their regiment, or move their homes to another Air Force base, or to move to the south of England in the case of a Scot in order to be near their Royal Navy base. They then find themselves south of the Border when the referendum comes along. If they have moved with their wives and families they may well have registered at their bases and homes south of the Border without realising the consequences as regards the referendum. I use again the example of the Royal Scots, currently based at Colchester. There may be at least 400 of them. I suspect that the young unmarried ones
will have registered at home in Scotland; I suspect equally that a number, particularly those living in married quarters, will not.
I understand the difficulty. I have tried to phrase my amendment carefully. It says,
"members of the...armed forces and their spouses...born in Scotland".
I may even be able to accept some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and re-define that to, "having once had a vote in Scotland". That is in order to try to make the link even stronger so that the noble Lord cannot say that someone born in Scotland could have left at the age of two or three years and might never been back and that it would not be right if that person had a vote.
I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Sewel, for their explanations--one in debate and the other in a letter. Of course, I know the rules for service declarations. Perhaps I may quote from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. It states:
Am I allowed to talk about parliamentary elections? They seem to be so unimportant. But in an ordinary parliamentary election the servicemen are voting for the same United Kingdom Parliament, although how long that will last, if these proposals ever see the light of day, I do not know. They are voting for the same United Kingdom Parliament so whether they vote in Colchester or somewhere in Scotland to that extent is neither here nor there. Probably at the time they said, "We are going to be here for a few years so we had better register here which will save us the bother of the postal or proxy votes we shall need if we continue to vote in Scotland." So they end up registered in Colchester, based with a Scottish regiment and without a vote.
I appreciate all the logistical difficulties that the Ministers have. But it is a very real problem. It seems to me that it is totally the luck of the draw. My daughter decided to go and live in Italy and the best man of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon decided to come and doctor to the English. My understanding of these matters is that one does not have too much say in the matter. If the regiment moves to Colchester you move with it and that is the end of the discussion. If you are posted to an air force base in the south of England from Lossiemouth you move to the air force base in the south of England. The servicemen are the serving forces of the Crown.
We deserve a better answer than either my right honourable and honourable friends received from Mr. Henry McLeish down the corridor or we received at Second Reading. Even a little sympathy and the words, "We are sorry. We know that it is not right, but we cannot think of a way round it" would be at least helpful. To brush these young men and women aside as though they and their votes do not matter does not seem right. My amendment may not be right, I hope, however, that Ministers will give much more consideration to the position of these young men and women. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: I remind the Committee that these amendments seek to allow Scottish and Welsh born people living elsewhere in the United Kingdom to vote at the referendums regardless of where they are registered to vote in the United Kingdom. By definition, that brings into play concepts of nationality or ethnicity and we cannot turn our face away from that--that somehow being born in a place carries some right to vote for the government of that country no matter how long you have been away from that country.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord accept that being born in a place does not merely affect nationality but affects domicile? If he does not, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will confirm it to him. What we are concerned with here is people who were born in Scotland and therefore have Scottish domicile--not Scottish nationality.
Lord Sewel: I understand that it may, in that one can have domicile of origin; but one can also have domicile of choice as well. That is an important distinction. For the lay person the fact is that the amendment would carry a heavy nationalist overlay. That is something no part of the House would wish to encourage in any way, shape or form.
If place of birth were to be a deciding factor in having a vote about the future governmental arrangements of a country one could soon get to total absurdities. I understand that Sir Cliff Richard was born in India. I understand that we are soon to be joined by a former captain of the England cricket team who was similarly born in India. If place of birth is important, can the claim really be made that people who have been born in one country but left at a very early age--I am in the same category in that I left the country I was born in, England, at a very early age--should have a continuing right to have a say in the arrangements for the government of that country? That is a difficult argument to sustain. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, was right when she said that where you are born should neither qualify you nor disqualify you from voting in this type of referendum. That must surely be right.
As the debate has gone on it has been clear that what I accept may well have been a well-intentioned amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, somehow to give some sense of ownership to people who are Scots of what is happening in Scotland would produce immense difficulties. There is the difficulty referred to by one of my noble friends of what should happen if there were a referendum about Northern Ireland. Would it mean that everyone who was born in Northern Ireland should have a vote in that referendum? We would go down a very dangerous and perilous path if we go down the route advocated by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Butterfield: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am concerned because as I understand it American citizens born in America but living abroad can vote in the American presidential election. Furthermore, American citizens living abroad have to pay tax to the American people. I cannot quite make that fit together with what the noble Lord is saying about eligibility to vote in a referendum. I have not thought deeply about this but I know that Americans can vote from overseas in the election of their president. They are taking part in the government of their country.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, will forgive me, perhaps he will consult the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, about the damage done by the American concept of extra-territoriality. It is a road I do not think we want to go down.
Lord Sewel: I cannot add anything more to the comments of the noble Earl. We have to decide what are the best arrangements for dealing with an internal problem in the United Kingdom, which is the move towards devolved government within the United Kingdom. That is the point we have to resolve. We ought to keep the concept of nationality and ethnicity well out of it because in our country, above all countries, that is a particularly dangerous and perilous path.
There is another point. The central register that the proposal would imply would be the most monstrous bureaucratic nightmare. How would it be set up? One would somehow have to verify place of birth and residency. There would have to be checks on birth certificates. There would be a requirement either to have polling stations throughout the United Kingdom or to have a totally massive postal voting system. We would have an enormous bureaucratic exercise which would break under its own internal contradictions.
I would not make the claim that the amendment was moved out of any sense of mischief. I am sure it was not. I am sure the intention was to generate a wider sense of ownership in a Scottish parliament. However, the way chosen, resurrecting the idea of nationality and ethnicity, which is central as soon as one starts using the definition of place of birth or country of birth as a qualifier, would be an extremely dangerous course of action. I strongly urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to put a short point arising from the Minister's remarks. If the Bill remains
in its present form I would ask the Government to refrain from referring to "the Scottish people". It will not be the Scottish people who are being asked to give their views in the referendum; it will be the residents of Scotland at a particular time. I am quite happy that that should be so--there are a great many difficulties--but the Government should not go around saying that it is the will of the Scottish people or that the Scottish people have determined something or other. That is false. Then to go on to say that it is "the settled will of the Scottish people" makes it even worse. Of course a referendum based on the electorate in Scotland--the latest register--gives a good view of opinion in Scotland. But do not call it the will of the Scottish people.
Lord Sewel: I have toyed with that one myself on many occasions. The formulation I tend to favour is "the people of Scotland".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for saying that he treated the amendment as being well intentioned. I have to say that chuckles from noble Lords on the Benches to my right may suggest that they do not entirely agree with that compliment. I accept it in the way it was intended.
In putting forward the amendment I feel that I was speaking for a number of people born in Scotland and Wales who no longer live there. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, suggested that the franchise chosen is perfectly acceptable to everyone. I suggest that it is not. However, I accept that there might be certain bureaucratic problems in taking forward the amendments I propose. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and members of the United Kingdom armed forces and their spouses who were born in Scotland and who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: In a way this is a subset of the previous amendment. Amendment No. 13 is grouped with Amendment No. 35, to which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will speak.
I outlined the position at Second Reading. It concerns those Scottish members of the Armed Forces who find themselves in a position where they are commanded to go with their regiment, or move their homes to another Air Force base, or to move to the south of England in the case of a Scot in order to be near their Royal Navy base. They then find themselves south of the Border when the referendum comes along. If they have moved with their wives and families they may well have registered at their bases and homes south of the Border without realising the consequences as regards the referendum. I use again the example of the Royal Scots, currently based at Colchester. There may be at least 400 of them. I suspect that the young unmarried ones
will have registered at home in Scotland; I suspect equally that a number, particularly those living in married quarters, will not.
I understand the difficulty. I have tried to phrase my amendment carefully. It says,
"members of the...armed forces and their spouses...born in Scotland".
I may even be able to accept some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and re-define that to, "having once had a vote in Scotland". That is in order to try to make the link even stronger so that the noble Lord cannot say that someone born in Scotland could have left at the age of two or three years and might never been back and that it would not be right if that person had a vote.
I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Sewel, for their explanations--one in debate and the other in a letter. Of course, I know the rules for service declarations. Perhaps I may quote from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. It states:
- "Thus members of the forces can retain through a service declaration their right to vote in Scotland. Accordingly no member of the forces will lose his right to vote in this referendum simply because he is on duty outwith Scotland".
Am I allowed to talk about parliamentary elections? They seem to be so unimportant. But in an ordinary parliamentary election the servicemen are voting for the same United Kingdom Parliament, although how long that will last, if these proposals ever see the light of day, I do not know. They are voting for the same United Kingdom Parliament so whether they vote in Colchester or somewhere in Scotland to that extent is neither here nor there. Probably at the time they said, "We are going to be here for a few years so we had better register here which will save us the bother of the postal or proxy votes we shall need if we continue to vote in Scotland." So they end up registered in Colchester, based with a Scottish regiment and without a vote.
I appreciate all the logistical difficulties that the Ministers have. But it is a very real problem. It seems to me that it is totally the luck of the draw. My daughter decided to go and live in Italy and the best man of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon decided to come and doctor to the English. My understanding of these matters is that one does not have too much say in the matter. If the regiment moves to Colchester you move with it and that is the end of the discussion. If you are posted to an air force base in the south of England from Lossiemouth you move to the air force base in the south of England. The servicemen are the serving forces of the Crown.
We deserve a better answer than either my right honourable and honourable friends received from Mr. Henry McLeish down the corridor or we received at Second Reading. Even a little sympathy and the words, "We are sorry. We know that it is not right, but we cannot think of a way round it" would be at least helpful. To brush these young men and women aside as though they and their votes do not matter does not seem right. My amendment may not be right, I hope, however, that Ministers will give much more consideration to the position of these young men and women. I beg to move.
Monday 4 July 2011
Anne McElvoy article - Does Scotland have too much to lose from independence?
Does Scotland have too much to lose from independence?
Scotland seems to have maintained a level of public service the rest of the UK is denied - but would independence mean giving it all up?
Alex Salmond emerged triumphant from the Scottish elections in May with an overall majority of 69 out of 129 seats at Holyrood.
A chill wind promptly wafted south to Westminster, where Prime Minister David Cameron is having to take the prospect of Scottish independence seriously.
No question the Scottish National Party (SNP) leader had beaten the main Westminster parties at their own game in Scotland, turning a minor party into a major political event.
But how might an independent Scotland work - and crucially in these lean times, how could it be afforded?
Scotland has had golden years in terms of a spending settlement. It still has 12 per cent higher per capita spending on health, for instance, than England. Scottish teachers' pay also rose by over 20 per cent from 2001, though contact time with pupils went down.
Lean times ahead
Devolution coincided with a benign environment in public finances - and a Labour government happy to dole out the dosh north of the border. Now public services in England are retrenching - job cuts, pension changes and angry unions tell that tale all too clearly.
In Scotland though, Mr Salmond insists that he can offer "economic security" - and intends to avoid public sector redundancies.
The first question an Englishman or woman confronts on travelling through the fiscal looking glass to Scotland is: "How on earth can they afford all this?"
Some think they may not be able to for much longer.
Free tuition fees for Scottish and EU students, free NHS prescriptions, free social care for the elderly - the list of things Scotland is currently paying for out of public funds that England cannot provide. Wales is also similarly subsidised in some areas, though the bill is much smaller.
According to John Kay, an economist and member of the Scottish government's advisory board:
"The effect of Gordon Brown's spending splurge (translated into an increase in the block grant to the Scottish government), was to increase expenditure by more than 50 per cent in real terms in the first seven years of the restored parliament."But the generosity of the UK government during the Brown years could be a source of future problems for Mr Salmond.
The country has grown used to high public spending as part of the benign post-devolution mood. Scotland cannot escape the cuts, but it is delaying many of them.
Some reductions are already biting in school closures to pay for free university tuition and in lack of infrastructure investment.
The SNP finance minister John Swinney cites cancer drugs to me as one area in which English patients can receive treatment on the NHS not available north of the border. He also says the Scottish government has already made significant savings:
"We've reduced the number of public bodies there are in Scotland by 25 per cent over the last four years. We didn't wait for the Lib-Dem Conservative government to come in and tell us to.
"We got on and did that to release efficiencies and to reduce the costs of government, and with those resources we can then redeploy those to fund priorities that matter."
'Neverendum'?
So, how does a party which embraces independence make the case that Scots really would be financially secure when the transfers from London are gone?
Professor John McClaren, a former advisor to Labour leaders in Scotland, sees a crunch coming:
"The public are used to quite high levels of spending, but unfortunately the levels of revenue coming into the UK government to pay for that [aren't] isn't there anymore. That's not really been addressed."
Scottish Nationalist politicians can, of course, claim that the public has experienced the SNP as a minority government at Holyrood, and has made a choice this year that the party can be trusted on managing the economy (or at least, prefers them to the alternatives).
But it is possible that the light will change as a referendum nears - though the failure to put a date on it leads to some joking that it is a "neverendum".
Advocates of a separate Scotland say that North Sea oil revenues and renewables would provide good foundations for its economy. But oil prices rise and fall, North Sea oil is getting harder to extract and renewables, though very promising for the Scottish economy, have been supported by cross-subsidy.
At the moment, there is appetite among Nationalists for a lower corporation tax regime than south of the border to attract business.
That is a competitively sound idea in principle - but any race to match low Irish corporation tax levels also means the country might well lose business revenues, at least in the short term.
Scotland under independence would also have to make some tough decisions about which of its free services it can truly afford to keep.
And the more England changes its spending patterns, the greater the contrast - and the pressure to come in Scotland.
With Scottish universities charging no fees at all and English ones planning to charge up to £9,000 per year, there is a danger that, as the revenue gap opens up, Scotland's often very good higher education sector could become the English system's poor relation.
So against a background of austerity, what sort of independence should the SNP try to bring about?
"Independence Lite"
The talk on my Scottish travels was rarely of a full break with England. Mr Salmond himself has cultivated a good relationship with the Queen over a shared love of horse-racing.
Her Majesty would certainly keep Balmoral, a head on the stamps and all the trappings, should Scotland vote "yes" to independence.
To judge by the response to the Royal Bank of Scotland crisis, the SNP is in no hurry to extricate Scottish financial services from UK-wide safety nets either. And as for joining the Euro and ditching the pound - well, that no longer seems like a realistic prospect as Greece burns.
Disentangling pensions and welfare from a UK-wide system which guarantees the same level of benefit in Glasgow as Gloucester might not appeal to voters either.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between what is being called "Independence Lite" and "Devolution Max".
This is echoed by the SNP's John Swinney, who says Scottish independence does not mean a clean break from the rest of the UK:
"If I think about when I joined the SNP in 1979, the definition of independence was very different to what it is today.
"[Today] we argue for Scottish independence within a social union with the rest of the United Kingdom because we have so many social contacts.
"What our politics are about is about political control - political, economic and financial control to ensure we can create a strong and a fair country."
The Nationalists will have one shot at a referendum for the foreseeable future and they will not want to put before the public a notion of Scottish autonomy which seems to risk more than it gains in economic certainty.
A little independence might just go a long way, when all is said and done.
More feedback - Who is subsidising whom?
I remember a conversation with a senior HMRC official where I asked whether HMRC had the means to produce a breakdown of revenues by tax and by reference to the contribution made by each home nation. The official reply was dismissive - HMRC kept on being asked this question by MPs and the answer was that they did not.
The issue is of real importance because while it is relatively easy to say what public expenditure is made as between the home nations, you really do need information on the tax revenues figures to complete the other side of the equation.
My off the cuff view for who subsidises whom is that:
The issue is of real importance because while it is relatively easy to say what public expenditure is made as between the home nations, you really do need information on the tax revenues figures to complete the other side of the equation.
My off the cuff view for who subsidises whom is that:
- England subsidises both Wales and Northern Ireland to a huge extent; and
- Scotland receives all sorts of financial and economic benefits from its membership of the Union, but these are outweighed by the tax contributions it makes into the Union. The effect of the UK taxation on the Scottish share of the oil and gas revenues from the North Sea and elswhere probably do swing the net figure of contributions into Scotland suffering a financial deficit from the Union.
In some useful feedback, I have now received some support for the above paragraph.
For example according to the 'accurate' GERS figures (09-10) Scotland returned 9.3% of the UK tax take from 8.3% of the population.
The renowned economist Professor Hughes-Hallet calculated that Scotland gave in taxation over £1,000 per head more than it got in its 'pocket money'. The same Professor has also calculated that for every £100 'spent' by the UK Government in Scotland, Greater London gets £174. In a telling example of how British budgets are juggled, in 2009-10 Scotland saw its 'Lottery' share cut by £150 million to help pay for London's Olympic games.
The renowned economist Professor Hughes-Hallet calculated that Scotland gave in taxation over £1,000 per head more than it got in its 'pocket money'. The same Professor has also calculated that for every £100 'spent' by the UK Government in Scotland, Greater London gets £174. In a telling example of how British budgets are juggled, in 2009-10 Scotland saw its 'Lottery' share cut by £150 million to help pay for London's Olympic games.
The Campaign for English Independence will treat all sensible feedback with great respect and when we can make use of it to improve the information and editorial comment on the Campaign's website, we will certainly do so. So please keep the feedback rolling in!
Some valuable feedback on the new site - English MPs
In an admission that will not endear us to the British elites, the Campaign for English Independence will happily work with reasoned supporters of independence from the other home nations.
Some really valid feedback has been given from north of the border and I comment on the first such point made as follows:
MPs in the Westminster Parliament - why you should be blaming them!
It is a very fair point that England's disadvantaged position within the Union of the UK could be amended tomorrow if those English MPs representing English constituencies were to start voting to defend English interests. We take that point totally. It would require these circa 500 MPs to ignore the party whip and say goodbye to any future career advancement in the British Parliament, but they should certainly speak and vote for England and damn the personal consequences.
Some really valid feedback has been given from north of the border and I comment on the first such point made as follows:
MPs in the Westminster Parliament - why you should be blaming them!
It is a very fair point that England's disadvantaged position within the Union of the UK could be amended tomorrow if those English MPs representing English constituencies were to start voting to defend English interests. We take that point totally. It would require these circa 500 MPs to ignore the party whip and say goodbye to any future career advancement in the British Parliament, but they should certainly speak and vote for England and damn the personal consequences.
MPs look at changing law in bid to scupper SNP's tuition fees plan.
Here is a good article taken from The Scotsman dealing with the Scottish treatment of English students.
MPs look to changing law in bid to scupper SNP's tuition fees plan
Published by The Scotsman on 4 July 2011 by Scott MacNab
Published by The Scotsman on 4 July 2011 by Scott MacNab
SNP plans to charge English and Welsh students up to £36,000 for a degree in Scotland - while Scottish students go free - could be derailed by equality legislation at Westminster.
Conservative MPs have branded the fees proposals "unfair discrimination" and are now considering how to amend the law to stop them, to ensure equal access for non-Scottish UK students, including those from Northern Ireland who would also be hit.
Other European students will pay nothing in Scotland, under EU rules preventing charges applying to students from another member state - although the SNP wants to change this.
The Scottish Government has described the Westminster move as "silly and invalid", and attacked the coalition over its recent decision to increase tuition fees to £9,000 a year.
The changes would bring fees for non-Scottish UK students into line with those charged by institutions in England after the increase.
Last week, education secretary Michael Russell outlined the proposals in the Scottish Parliament as he set out plans to allow universities to set their own fees for other UK students from the academic year 2012-3.
But Graham Stuart, Tory chairman of the Commons education select committee, said he is to consider a change to equalities legislation.
"It is well worth exploring whether equality law could be amended or used as it stands to build a case," he said.
"As we have devolution, it is important that all members of this UK have a guarantee they will be treated fairly by any of the administrations.
"If it (equality legislation] can be used to stop unfair discrimination against UK citizens in gaining fair access on fair terms to universities in Scotland, then I would fully support that."
Former Scottish secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said that the SNP plans were "grossly unfair" and "ought to be rectified".
The Scottish Government wants to bring in primary legislation capping the amount at a maximum of £9,000 a year from 2013-4, but universities are to voluntarily comply with the cap until such laws can be put in place.
The Scottish Government has described the Westminster move as "silly and invalid", and attacked the coalition over its recent decision to increase tuition fees to £9,000 a year.
The changes would bring fees for non-Scottish UK students into line with those charged by institutions in England after the increase.
Last week, education secretary Michael Russell outlined the proposals in the Scottish Parliament as he set out plans to allow universities to set their own fees for other UK students from the academic year 2012-3.
But Graham Stuart, Tory chairman of the Commons education select committee, said he is to consider a change to equalities legislation.
"It is well worth exploring whether equality law could be amended or used as it stands to build a case," he said.
"As we have devolution, it is important that all members of this UK have a guarantee they will be treated fairly by any of the administrations.
"If it (equality legislation] can be used to stop unfair discrimination against UK citizens in gaining fair access on fair terms to universities in Scotland, then I would fully support that."
Former Scottish secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said that the SNP plans were "grossly unfair" and "ought to be rectified".
The Scottish Government wants to bring in primary legislation capping the amount at a maximum of £9,000 a year from 2013-4, but universities are to voluntarily comply with the cap until such laws can be put in place.
A spokesman for Mr Russell said: "This is an extremely silly and invalid response.
"The only unfairness to English students has been the imposition of ever higher tuition fees by successive Westminster governments, and the rocks will melt with the sun before we go down the same road for Scottish students.
"It is high time that Westminster politicians stopped carping about Scotland and started re-thinking their own damaging decisions for England.
"The reason the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration applied tuition fees to students from the rest of the UK was because the then Labour government at Westminster brought in fees south of the Border - and the reason we have announced a consultation about increasing them is because the Tory/Lib Dem coalition has hiked them in England."
The spokesman added: "We have to act to ensure that Scotland remains the best option, not the cheapest option, for higher education, and that university places for Scottish students are protected.
"The Scottish Government has also held productive discussions with the European Commission about proposals to levy management fees on EU students."
Announcing the move, Mr Russell said the decision could see fees range from £1,800 to £9,000 per year, with a possible average of £6,375.
"The only unfairness to English students has been the imposition of ever higher tuition fees by successive Westminster governments, and the rocks will melt with the sun before we go down the same road for Scottish students.
"It is high time that Westminster politicians stopped carping about Scotland and started re-thinking their own damaging decisions for England.
"The reason the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration applied tuition fees to students from the rest of the UK was because the then Labour government at Westminster brought in fees south of the Border - and the reason we have announced a consultation about increasing them is because the Tory/Lib Dem coalition has hiked them in England."
The spokesman added: "We have to act to ensure that Scotland remains the best option, not the cheapest option, for higher education, and that university places for Scottish students are protected.
"The Scottish Government has also held productive discussions with the European Commission about proposals to levy management fees on EU students."
Announcing the move, Mr Russell said the decision could see fees range from £1,800 to £9,000 per year, with a possible average of £6,375.
A surprising coincidence
The very same day that the Campaign for English Independence is launched, BBC Scotland reports the results of opinion polls claiming to prove that the English do not approve of Scottish independence!
I copy the BBC Scotland article in italics:
4 July 2011 Last updated at 09:51
The ComRes survey for BBC's Newsnight and Radio 4's World at One found 48% of voters in England wanted Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom.
If Scotland voted for separation, 45% said they would like a referendum in the rest of the UK.
ComRes chairman Andrew Hawkins said it suggested both nations should have a say in any decision about the Union.
The poll asked 864 adults in England a variety of questions relating to Scottish independence.
Following an historic election victory in May, Scotland's SNP government promised to hold a referendum on Scottish independence within the next five years.
Despite increasing complaints from English MPs that Scotland gets too much funding from Westminster, 51% of those surveyed thought that an independent Scotland would not make any difference to how well off England was.
While 21% of people thought England would be worse off, 19% said it would be better off.
On the issue of whether there would have to be a second referendum in the rest of the United Kingdom should Scotland vote for independence, as recently suggested by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, opinion was fairly evenly split.
Forty-five percent said the rest of the United Kingdom should get a say, while 47% said it should not.
But more than a third did want to see an independent England - the same number as those who supported an independent Scotland.
Mr Hawkins said: "The English take a remarkably similar line to the Scots when it comes to independence, which perhaps adds weight to the argument that 'Scottishness' itself is specious, that Scots are simply those people who live in the northern-most part of Great Britain.
"That almost half of the English feel that they would like a say over Scotland's future suggests that the Union should be England's as well as Scotland's to determine."
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University told the BBC that the poll suggested that "for the most part, England wants the Union to continue and certainly sees little advantage in it ending, but probably would not die in a ditch to keep it preserved".
"After all, for most people in England, Scotland is not a significant 'other'," he said.
Various points to note on the above.
I copy the BBC Scotland article in italics:
4 July 2011 Last updated at 09:51
Nearly half of English oppose Scottish independence - poll
Almost half of people in England do not want Scotland to become independent, a poll suggests.
The ComRes survey for BBC's Newsnight and Radio 4's World at One found 48% of voters in England wanted Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom.
If Scotland voted for separation, 45% said they would like a referendum in the rest of the UK.
ComRes chairman Andrew Hawkins said it suggested both nations should have a say in any decision about the Union.
The poll asked 864 adults in England a variety of questions relating to Scottish independence.
Following an historic election victory in May, Scotland's SNP government promised to hold a referendum on Scottish independence within the next five years.
English support for Scottish independence polled at 36% - almost exactly the same as the result of a poll for the Herald newspaper last month, which suggested 37% of Scots favoured separation.
Despite increasing complaints from English MPs that Scotland gets too much funding from Westminster, 51% of those surveyed thought that an independent Scotland would not make any difference to how well off England was.
While 21% of people thought England would be worse off, 19% said it would be better off.
On the issue of whether there would have to be a second referendum in the rest of the United Kingdom should Scotland vote for independence, as recently suggested by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, opinion was fairly evenly split.
Forty-five percent said the rest of the United Kingdom should get a say, while 47% said it should not.
Regardless of what Scotland decides to do, however, the poll indicated that most English people wanted England to remain within a United Kingdom, with 57% saying they would not like the country to become fully independent with its own government.
But more than a third did want to see an independent England - the same number as those who supported an independent Scotland.
Mr Hawkins said: "The English take a remarkably similar line to the Scots when it comes to independence, which perhaps adds weight to the argument that 'Scottishness' itself is specious, that Scots are simply those people who live in the northern-most part of Great Britain.
"That almost half of the English feel that they would like a say over Scotland's future suggests that the Union should be England's as well as Scotland's to determine."
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University told the BBC that the poll suggested that "for the most part, England wants the Union to continue and certainly sees little advantage in it ending, but probably would not die in a ditch to keep it preserved".
"After all, for most people in England, Scotland is not a significant 'other'," he said.
Various points to note on the above.
- If only 48% of those English polled were against Scottish independence, then the majority were either in favour or didn't care! So the BBC might have used a rather different headline for this report.
- Interesting to see that per the BBC 'more than a third did want to see an independent England - the same number as those who supported an independent Scotland.' In anecdotal discussions with people, we're finding the figure in favour of English independence is close to a 100%!
- Does the British government have the power to intercept all phone calls and emails in the UK? Yes, it does. This time, we will assume that this amazing coincidence of the BBC publishing the above article on the same day as the launch date of the Campaign for English Independence was just that. But you know what? You can never trust the British government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)