ICAS reveal the conviction of their British Unionist political sympathies

Scotland business

14 August 2011 Last updated at 00:25

Business tax move may hit spending, says accounts body

Handing powers to set corporation tax from Westminster to Holyrood could destabilise public spending, Scotland's accountancy body has claimed.

The warning came as Scottish ministers were making their case for the move.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) claimed the volatile nature of the economy meant tax returns would be unpredictable.

The body also talked of a "race to the bottom", if more than one part of the UK had corporation tax-varying powers.

The UK Treasury wants to devolve control of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, given its unique position in sharing a land border with the Republic of Ireland - where the levy is set at 12.5%.

The Scottish government, which will this week publish it paper on corporation tax reform, wants the same powers included in the Scotland Bill, currently going through Westminster.

Corporation tax, excluding North Sea Oil, generated £2.6bn pounds in Scotland, during 2009-10.
Scottish ministers said seperate analysis showed if Northern Ireland was able to pre-announce a cut in the corporation tax rate to 12.5%, 58,000 more jobs would be created, while living standards and economic growth would rise.

But the ICAS said there would be limited scope for a rates cut in Scotland, if public services were to be maintained at a time when they were already under strain.

Elspeth Orcharton, assistant director of tax at the institute, said such a move could also give rise to "profit-shifting" by companies which operate both north and south of the border.

"There are significant additional administrative burden and tax compliance costs for companies and HMRC, from changes necessary to monitor profit-shifting through, for example, transfer pricing legislation," she said.

"Determining the tax residence of companies, branches and permanent establishments would also create additional burdens."

Ms Orcharton argued devolving tax powers went against the goal of simplifying regulation, adding: "Of course, if you ask businesses if they'd like to pay less tax, they say 'yes'.
"However, a tax cut in itself can't deliver a complex public financial model for a small country in a global business world."

The UK government has calculated that matching Northern Ireland's proposals could leave a hole of about £2.6bn a year in the Holyrood budget, and up to £12bn over five years - a claim dismissed by the Scottish government.

Finance Secretary John Swinney, said: "Scotland must have control of the key economic levers and corporation tax as a vital source of competitive advantage in a global economy.

"Powers over corporation tax would enable us to boost investment, attract new businesses, and take the right decisions for Scotland.

"Full responsibility for corporation tax can give Scots a greater incentive to start their own business, provide Scottish firms with a competitive edge and help raise Scotland's standard of living."

Scots businessman Jim McColl backed the Holyrood government's call, adding: "Scotland needs all the powers at its disposal to give people the reason to bring their business and investment to Scotland.
"Corporation tax would provide a significant fiscal lever to provide necessary incentives providing a major boost for the Scottish economy at a critical time."

The CEI notes that the ICAS objections seem more about that Institute's apparent political bias in favour of British unionism than the technical merits of the issue.  

Why an English Nation State is the only option that will serve the nation's interests.

'Why an English Nation State is the only option that will serve the nation's interests.'

An article written by Steve Wyatt for the Campaign for English Independence

Published on 11 August 2011

If we take, as a reasonable starting point, the idea that a nation should be able to govern itself and the general will of the people should be reflected within that government, we would hopefully recognise this concept as the basic twin principles of national self-determination reflected in the democratic principle. 

In essence it would be the gold standard of democratic accountability. So if the government no longer functions in the interest of the nation then the people can disempower them at the ballot box and bring in those who will. The nation owes no loyalty to a government that demonstrates no loyalty to the nation.  

The reason I highlight these principles is to use them as a clear starting point so that in considering the current political existence of the English national politic, we can make a comparison with the gold standard.  For in making this comparison we can truly perceive how emasculated the English nation has become from a national political consciousness that reflects English interests whether that’s within the borders of England or elsewhere.

Now it is usual, but not always the case, that a nation has a definable territory and in the case of the English nation this would be the territory of England.  You might think this is a statement of the obvious, but consider that because the English have no political representation the borders of our homeland have become porous and blurred. 

The reason for this is that the British government have consistently chipped away at the territory of England; Monmouthshire was given to Wales, large portions of the North Sea, previously English territory, were given to Scotland, our fishing waters all around our coast ceded to the EU and the ability to say who we want and more importantly who we don’t want within our borders is not within our control. 

You might think these territorial deficiencies are equally distributed between the nations of the British Isles but this would be wrong assumption.   The other nations have something the English do not, national political recognition. 

I’m sure we are familiar with the parliaments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, even though those for Northen Ireland and Wales are thinly disguised as 'national assemblies'.  One can wonder why the British government does not take the next logical step and extend their recognition to English political life.  But the point is they haven’t and it is a historical fact the British government, especially since the end of WW2 have always sought to undermine an English consciousness.

Indeed, the diminishing influence of Britishness abroad was more than made up for in their domination of Englishness at home. 

Consider there has never been a Secretary of State for England, yet there remains one for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well these other home nations enjoying their own parliaments.  Surely the British establishment could see the only real threat to their existence would come from a competing English consciousness: if England had its own representation then what would be the need for Britishness? 

The existence of a nation is not only the physical fact of a people within their homeland; it should also exist in the imagination of the people.  It exists within a nation as a sense of “we” and it can be the tangible yet unfathomable motivation for heroic deeds and great sacrifice in defence of the homeland and our people. 

Yet this nation of the imagination is also as porous and blurred as the physical one, the implicit denial of English cultural markers is often experienced as mood music to the British establishments wider intentions, often in the background we hear the chatter of politicians, social commentators and broadcasters who talk of inclusivity and tolerance whilst concurrently revising our culture and history as something questionable and deviant.  

Let there be no doubt these are deliberate acts designed to place within the minds of the people lingering doubt about the reality of English nationhood. After all can you think of another culture that is more hidden, neglected and denied to its own people than that of England? 

If the link between a culture and the people it reflects can be broken then it can be replaced with “issues” and a political correctness that leaves people asking if they can “say that anymore” till they reach a point that certain natural attitudes are held to be suspicious and should remain hidden.  In effect we are told to deny the evidence of our senses for some other progressive reality. Does this sound familiar? 

I always find it ironic that those who sermonise about tolerance cannot tolerate an idea of Englishness they cannot impose their definitions upon.

The English would be right to ask the question - Why are the British political class so unconcerned and ignorant of English interests? 

We might be tempted to blame it on personalities, which may be an appealing option given the appalling decisions and feckless, blinkered thoughtlessness shown by many. 

The British establishment is replete with self-serving and dogmatic lobbies that energetically exclude any dissenting voice.  Yet the conventional and accepted truths expounded by these commentators are nothing more than the naive products of illusion when compared with the evidence of our senses. 

Personalities are a tempting option but there is another, clearer explanation for the denial of English nationhood, it is a systemic problem. 

Only a short-termist system can throw up so many blinkered personalities within our political class that know, come-what-may, they will receive their rewards no matter how poor their decisions and how disastrous the outcomes, this appears to be the British way. 

Indeed one cabinet minister said the home office was not “fit for purpose”, yet from an English national perspective, given it is the state which is supposed to protect the nation’s culture and territory, it’s not just the home office it is the whole of the state which is unfit. 

The British state is the very system that has given us ‘continentalists’ who took us into the EU and keep us there; that gave us ‘Americanists’ who drew us into the disastrous wars in the Middle East, ‘cultural revisionists’ who propagate diversity myths, ‘alarmists’ who deliberately conflate jingoism with genuine nationalism. In fact the British state has given us everything but English national self-interest. 

Currently it is surely undeniable that the British state has separated itself in mind-set and therefore in loyalty to the English nation.

It is clear that until the English emerge from the suffocating embrace of the British establishment, we will continue to decline as a nation - because very soon our culture will not have room to draw breath.   Only until we establish our own cultural and political sovereignty, will our national interest continue to be perverted, our creativity frustrated and future eroded and our democratic right to self-determination as a mature nation denied. 

England needs a new democratic state in which the personalities that emerge have a direct relationship and responsibility to the English people.

Surely an English Parliament is only the first step to full national sovereignty in the creation of an English nation state which freely accepts, fosters and reflects the values, principles and unique culture of the English people. 

Why did England alone suffer from this week's riots?

The Guardian has reported that Alex Salmond, backed by Scottish National party MSPs and party activists, complained about the media and social media reporting of the "UK riots" when no Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish city has been involved.

On Wednesday, BBC News 24 amended its onscreen titles, headlining its coverage as "England riots". Sky News is continuing to title its coverage "UK riots".

Mr Salmond said Scottish society was different to England's, implying that riots were much less likely in Scotland. Referring to the riots being UK-wide increased the risks of copycat riots and risked damaging Scotland's reputation as a tourism destination, he told BBC Radio Scotland.

"We know we have a different society in Scotland, and one of my frustrations yesterday was to see this being described on BBC television and Sky as 'riots in the UK,'" he added.

The CEI agrees with Mr Salmond that there is a fundamental difference between Scotland and England which goes far to explain why England alone has suffered so badly from the recent riots.

Here's a clue...

The youth of Scotland are very effectively encouraged by the Scottish government, the Scottish First Minister, the Scottish Civil Service and a wide range of Scottish national institutions to hold and value a Scottish identity.

Why would the youth of Scotland wish to riot and trash their own society and nation?

In England by contrast, the British state seeks to impose a woolly and meaningless 'British' identity on those who live here, and actively encourages those from minority communities to treasure their differences from the rest of us.

This is not just a matter of a wretchedly poor policy, but is part and pacel of the way the British elites seek to avoid having political accountability to the the people of England.   Instead these elites claim to represent the 'British nation' - and as no such nation exists ... so they avoid accountability.

We will see in the next few weeks the British elites - working hard to cover their backs - ordering review after review, investigation after investigation and enquiry after enquiry into the riots.  No need for these.

The British elites hold total power in England - they run our education system, the state broadcaster the BBC, our welfare state, our immigration policies and our police forces.

The riots in England are just as much the personal responsibility of the British elites as are the long list of shortcomings in other policy areas under their control.     

At last the BBC refer to England

The coverage by the British state's broadcaster, the BBC, of the riots has correctly referred to them as taking place in England.

The suspicion that the BBC's liberal elites tend to refer to 'England' and 'English' in a non-sport context only when there is bad news will be proved well or ill-founded in due course.

Now that the BBC has admitted England as a nation exists - albeit in the context of the riots - then to be consistent they should report the continuing societal, political, police and the judicial response to the riots and to their background as relating to England only too.

We shall see. 

Why do the British elites let down England time and time again?

Copied below ia an article from the Times which we think worth copying.

Solo Scotland can’t have our Armed Forces, warns Fox

Liam Fox with Lossiemouth’s commander, Group Captain Andy Hine, yesterday

Andrew Milligan/PA

• 
  Liam Fox with Lossiemouth’s commander, Group Captain Andy Hine, yesterday Andrew Milligan/PA

Lorraine Davidson

July 20 2011

Liam Fox warned yesterday that the SNP’s plans for independence would jeopardise the expanded military “footprint” announced for Scotland earlier this week.

The Defence Secretary was speaking during a visit to RAF Lossiemouth, which was saved from the threat of closure earlier this week. Although Leuchars, in Fife, will close as part of the bases review, the UK Government has announced that it will double the size of the Army north of the Border.

Asked about the SNP’s plans for independence, Mr Fox said: “If we were not to have a Union I could not guarantee what the military footprint would be here. Our Armed Forces are for the Crown around the UK. We could not guarantee what that footprint would be should the Union break up.”

Under a shake-up of defence services, announced on Monday, the size of the Army in Scotland will increase from about 3,500 to 8,500. One of five multi-role brigades will be centred on RAF Kirknewton, a former airfield southwest of Edinburgh. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars. The Defence Secretary also used his visit to give an assurance that there would be no gap in the changeover at Leuchars from being an RAF base to an army barracks for about 1,500 troops. He said that strenuous efforts would be made to speed up the process of reopening RAF Kinloss as another Scottish army base.

“Overall, Scotland has a net gain of 2,500 posts. That dramatically increases the defence footprint in Scotland. Scotland has come out as a very handsome winner from the changes we have made. It is a very good result for this area and for Scotland as a whole,” he said.

The Defence Secretary’s warnings about the loss of defence jobs if Scotland voted to become independent came as Sir Mike Jackson, the Army’s former Chief of General Staff, rejected the SNP’s plans for sharing military services.

Sir Mike claimed that soldiers could have only one “political master” and he suggested that any Scottish army would have to be started from scratch. “You cannot have two nation states and two political masters,” he said.

On the future of the country’s existing defence jobs, he said: “The British Government could argue he [the First Minister, Alex Salmond] is not entitled to any troops as they are all sworn into the British Army.”

Scottish Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Ann McKechin, MP, claimed that the SNP’s plans for independence posed a greater threat to the country than the coalition’s defence review.
She said: “The idea that Scotland can break away from the United Kingdom but keep all the Army, Navy and RAF establishments, personnel and equipment is ludicrous. It won’t fool anyone. It is little wonder the SNP’s cloud cuckoo land plans have been rubbished by top UK Armed Forces chiefs.

“It’s time the SNP stopped misleading the Scottish public and came clean on what exactly their plans are for defence in a separated Scotland.”

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said: “The SNP is standing up for Scotland to have the optimal conventional defence footprint. Sadly the UK Government is slashing the number of RAF personnel in Scotland by more than 50 per cent, is withdrawing the Royal Marines from Scotland almost entirely and is closing a series of military facilities.”

John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, will visit RAF Leuchars today to discuss the impact of the loss of the base as an RAF facility.

BBC news report on Welsh Independence

2 August 2011 Last updated at 14:22

Independent Wales would be 39% richer, claims ex-MP

Adam Price said he would like to be involved in front-line politics again

People in Wales would be about 39% richer had it achieved independence more than 20 years ago, according to a report by a former Plaid Cymru MP.

Harvard University research fellow Adam Price's report claims Wales' economy would have grown by 2.5% a year if it had become independent around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

The Welsh Government has been asked to comment.

A Welsh Conservative economics advisor said it was "interesting".

Mr Price told BBC Radio Wales: "We have looked at the relationship between economic performance and country size.

'Small countries do better'

"What we find... there does seem to be this small country bonus. Basically, if you are small, over the last 30 years in the European Union, you do better."

He added: "If we had been independent in 1990, it would be interesting to see what we would have had in terms of an economic policy and what kind of sectors we would have developed.

"I think Ireland did a big study in the middle of the 1980s looking at the sectors that it should develop and that's the one thing I think that the Irish were very very good at back then."

Opinion polls consistently show about one in 10 people support independence for Wales.

Plaid has a long-term ambition for an independent Wales within the EU.

The report comes after small economies, such as Iceland and Ireland, were rocked by the worldwide financial crisis.

But Mr Price said Ireland was "still richer than Wales despite its current problems".

The former Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP said the report, commissioned by Plaid MEP Jill Evans, found "small countries do better", and economists were still "grappling" with the reasons why.

Front-line politics

He said one possible reason was that small countries become "natural exporters", adding: "Because of the nature of being small, you become an exporting entrepreneurial economy, the one thing Wales isn't at the moment."

Mr Price said smaller countries were "agile" and moved fast.

The former MP also confirmed he "would like to get back involved in front-line politics", saying he would like to serve if there was an "opportunity" at the next election.

The report, called The Flotilla Effect: Europe's small economies through the eye of the storm, claims to present "a number of new findings which will have a significant impact on the independence debate in Wales and Scotland, and the current discussions on the origins and consequences of the Euro-crisis".

Professor David Blackaby, of Swansea University's School of Business and Economics, said although some small countries had done well, their success was not necessarily due to their size.

"If you have got some natural advantage, human skills or physical resources, there's usually a reason why countries did well and it needn't necessarily be related to size," he said.

Professor Dylan Jones-Evans, economic advisor to the Welsh Conservatives and director of enterprise and innovation at the University of Wales, said it was an "interesting" piece of research.

He added: "Certainly what is missing in the paper is an assessment of whether a successful region within a national economy can perform better than, shall we say, a small independent nation of the same size, and that is sorely missing in the analysis".

He said Wales was the poorest nation in the UK, and had "deep structural problems, particularly within areas like the south Wales valleys that will probably take another generation to actually deal with, and any independent nation would have to focus on that".

Notes on the above BBC article by the Campaign for English Independence:

The CEI has no doubts at all about the claim that Wales as a historic nation should have independence.  The interesting point arising from the above is that the UK is inceasingly being seen as less than the sum of its parts.  In other words, at laest three of the four home nations would be be better off as independent nation states when the Union of the UK is consigned to history.

A Kirk Wedding for the MacWindors....

The Times editorial on 30 July 2011 commenting on a 'A Kirk Wedding'. i.e. that of Englishman Mike Tyndall and Englishwomen Zara Phillips which has taken place somewhere in the north of Britain, said:

"But despite the congregation invoking Blake’s vision “in England’s green and pleasant land”, today’s wedding will be a very Scottish affair, and all the better for it. Scotland is quietly proud of a royal family that is itself proud of its Scottish roots. James I (and VI) started the connection, which, despite a few hiccups (Bonnie Prince Charlie), has flourished, with royal tartan, royal Scottish regiments, a German prince nowhere more at home than in Balmoral and a centenarian Queen Mother who loved whisky, bagpipes and her Caithness castle. And, with Scottish conscientiousness, the royal bride will be back at work next week."

Reading the above, I think we may make two pretty safe assumptions:

• that the Murdoch family dominated News International business is seeking to win friends among the British elites and has put aside its usual reflex anti-Royal slant; and

• that the German family dominated firm - known to us under its local brand name of 'Windsor' - has taken a bet that Mr Salmond may well be leading Scotland out of the British Union in a few years' time and they must lose no time developing their Scottish franchise.

 Anyway, the Campaign for English Independence wishes this bright English couple the best of English luck.

RBS - what might these initials stand for?

Philip Hampton the Chairman of RBS is quoted by the newly reopened National Museum of Scotland as follows:

“We are delighted to be joining forces with the National Museums of Scotland. RBS has a Scottish heritage going back almost 300 years so it is natural that we should be supporting this great institution.  We have changed the way we do sponsorship and are working much more in partnership with organisations to ensure maximum community benefit. Through this collaboration with the National Museums of Scotland we are aiming to encourage people of all ages to learn about Scotland’s history and Scotland’s contribution to the world. The redevelopment of the Museum will transform this wonderful Scottish asset into one of the world’s great museums and RBS is very proud to be a partner.”

Questions arising from the above:

Question (i) Is any one able to name a large UK commercial group which boasts of its 300 years of English heritage? 

Answer: None of course do, in view of British institutional racism against England.

Question (ii) Why should RBS be making huge grants to any museum when it is in such a poor condition, with its share price reaching new lows?

Answer: please call Sir Philip Hampton's office for an explanation.

Question (iii) Why doesn't England have its own National Museum of England?

Answer: please see answer to question (i) above.