Scottish 16 year olds will vote in Scottish independence referendum

The SNP government had managed to pass legislation that Scottish sixteen years olds will be entitled to vote in the forthcoming Scottish Independence Referendum.  This is great news - as these Scottish youngsters are expected to be even keener on Scottish independence Scottish patriots than older generations.

Sir Gus O'Donald told to 'read the riot act' over Scottish Independence

Sir Gus O'Donnell told to 'read the riot act' over Scottish independence

The United Kingdom’s most senior mandarin should “read the riot act” in Scotland today following claims Alex Salmond has enlisted civil servants in his drive to break up Britain, opposition parties have said.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor - The Telegraph 29 Sep 2011

Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats joined forces on the eve of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s visit to Scotland today to ask that he intervene in the growing row over the politicisation of the civil service.

Senior sources told the Daily Telegraph that Sir Gus, the Cabinet Secretary, is due to hold meetings in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond and Sir Peter Housden, the First Minister’s permanent secretary and most senior civil servant.

Opposition party politicians, including former ministers, warned last week that supposedly neutral civil servants have “crossed the line” and become part of the SNP administration’s pro-separation propaganda machine.

They pointed to statements issued by the Scottish Executive attacking Coalition Government ministers in usually personal terms. This is despite Mr Salmond’s officials, including Sir Peter, remaining part of the British civil service.

Their complaints reached a crescendo on Monday when it emerged that Mr Salmond has appointed a mandarin on a salary of up to £208,000 per year to spearhead his plan for Scottish separation.

Senior SNP politicians said last night that it was the duty of civil servants to help implement the SNP’s manifesto, but opposition parties said it was “ridiculous” this responsibility extended beyond devolved issues to the break-up of Britain.

Sir Gus is Sir Peter’s superior and they appealed for the civil service chief, whose initials and power have led to him being nicknamed God, to investigate their complaints.

Tavish Scott, the former Scottish Liberal Democrat leader and former Transport Minister, said: 

“Instead of parleying with the First Minister, Sir Gus should be reading the riot act to the permanent secretary.

“His job must be to stop the Nationalists introducing politics to the Scottish civil service and a £200,000 civil servant with responsibility for splitting up the UK is incompatible with a UK civil service. The question we’re all asking is what Sir Gus is going to do about it?”

Iain Gray, Labour’s Holyrood leader, who held a variety of ministerial positions under three First Ministers, said Sir Gus should use his visit to Scotland to “examine the conduct” of his Scottish team.

“Ever since Alex Salmond became First Minister, there have been concerns about the politicisation of the civil service and since the election of an SNP majority these concerns have accelerated,” he said.

“Many statements from Scottish government spokespeople and documents seem to me incompatible with my experience of how the civil service worked with ministers as they stray well beyond the acceptable line into politics.”

Mr Gray also said Sir Gus should question whether Mr Salmond’s appointment of the new mandarin, who has been nicknamed the “director general for separation” is an appropriate addition to a supposedly neutral civil service.

The successful candidate for the “strategy and affairs” role will take charge of the SNP administration’s referendum and campaign for more powers.

The post was approved by Sir Peter and the Civil Service senior leadership committee, which is chaired by Sir Gus.

The Cabinet Secretary was appointed to his post by Tony Blair in 2005 in a move intended by the then-Prime Minister to show he was not politicising the civil service.

He had huge experience of working for ministers from all sides of the political divide, having previously been permanent secretary at Gordon Brown’s Treasury and Sir John Major’s press secretary during his premiership.

David McLetchie, the former Scottish Tory leader and the party’s constitutional affairs spokesman, said civil servants have a difficult balancing act but added: “Clearly the boundaries in Scotland are being pushed to near breaking point.

“Gus O’Donnell could usefully remind both the First Minister and his colleagues of the boundaries of the British civil service.”

He cited “flimsy” reports produced by officials on the SNP’s demands for extra tax powers to be devolved as part of the Coalition Government’s Scotland Bill.

The corporation tax document cited the support of individual entrepreneurs, but ignored the opposition or large business groups like CBI Scotland.

David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said on Monday the papers were “inadequate” and “don’t address some of the fundamental questions”.

Willie Rennie, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, said he had heard concerns from within the civil service but it was difficult to gather evidence as individuals were afraid of “sticking their head above the parapet”.

“Sir Gus needs to be asking some really tough questions,” he added.

But a senior SNP politician said civil servants should work to implement all SNP manifesto promises, even if they extend to separation.

The CEI comments that The Telegraph is owned by the Scottish Barclay twins and notes that the job title of the staffer who wrote the above is called 'Scottish Political Editor'.  The Telgraph does not of couse have an 'English Political Editor'. 

New Scottish political parties

The Scotsman has today reported that there will be a new Scottish Labour Party organisation, which will make its own decisions (instead of being faxed the script from Labour Party HQ in London).

This follows on from the recent announcement by the best placed Scottish Tory leadership candidate that if elected he will form a new Scottish-based centre right party, independent from the British Conservative and Unionist Party led by Cameron.

The unbundling of the British political establishment is a journey with a definite destination (the British elites seeking to save their jobs and power in a broken Union) and these two structural steps are significant in showing how quickly developments are occurring.

No one else appears to have yet pointed out that a British government relying for its Parliamentary support on a separate Scottish allied party would be unlikely to choose the leader of that relatively minuscule party as Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition.

Thankfully England might therefore be spared another Gordon Brown the Scot who showed the English what moral stature is to be expected from a Scot who was a son of the manse.

Another point worth noting is that when the Tories and Labour cease to stand election candidates in Scotland - and neither of course already stands in Northern Ireland - then how can either of these two parties be considered British?

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.