In defence of The Union

ConservativeHome's tip of the week is to recommend a subscription to The Business.  It's a great read every week with insightful analysis of the economy, domestic politics and international affairs.  Its free market, Eurosceptic worldview should hold many attractions for Conservatives.  Allister Heath has just become the magazine's Editor.  At just 29 it's a rapid promotion but Allister is largely responsible for The Business' edgy, must-read commentary.  My warmest congratulations to him.

This week's Business (not yet online) contains an editorial in defence of The Union between Scotland and the rest of the UK.  The editorial concludes with a brief survey of the dangers of separation for England:

• Probable loss of the UK's seat on the UN Security Council;
• Without Scotland there is nowhere to base the nuclear deterrent;
• Around one-third of the British Army's fighting force is Scottish;
• The end of North Sea oil and gas.

Its conclusion:

"Scotland without England, of course, would be an irrelevance; a diminshed state on the margins of Europe in thrawl to a burned-out socialist ideology.  But England would be the loser too, in prestige, importance and power.  The truth is that, 300 years on, both have more to gain by being together than drifting apart.  The remedy to the discontent that will sour the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union is not divorce but marriage counselling... England needs to realise that it will lose a lot more than it thinks if it loses Scotland.  The Scots need to realise that they cannot live off massive public spending forever.  A sense of fairness must be reintroduced between both nations."

Comments

[E L Marberry]

And maybe Conservatives could lose the sour tone that so often comes up when Scotland is mentioned (Alan Duncan take note). No doubt the usual CH ultras will be here in a moment saying we should stick the barbed wire up at Carlisle asap. I hope they realise what damage it does to the Conservative Party when they are so hostile to the union.

[Louise]

Presumably if the end of the Union means the end of North Sea oil and gas for England it means it all goes to Scotland. Making it much less of an irrelevance - of course.

A nation with a heavily depleted army, nowhere to house its nuclear deterrent, loss of massive natural resources and revenue and loss of power on the political stage is pretty much an irrelevance too.

[Drew SW london]

Louise @ 1315h

The North Sea oil might (just conceivably) be mainly Scots, but the bulk of the gas is English. Most natural gas arriving in Scotland is imported from Norway these days.

(and don't forget that the Orkneys and Shetlands have a view about that oil as well...)

And of course the only sensible place to park the new nuclear boats is Barrow-in-Furness, where they're building them (and so handy for Windsc...Sellafield).

[Michael McGowan]

E.L. Marberry should take note that people only get sour about Scotland because it enjoys a grossly overprivileged position under the gerrymandered constitution of the United Kingdom. Scottish voters get two votes (compared to a single vote for everyone - including Scots - living south of the border): one to have a say in their own affairs (fine) and another to interfere in the affairs of their neighbours without their consent (not fine). Injustice does tend to breed sourness....in the way black South Africans got "sour" about being denied equality of voting treatment with white South Africans.

The Scots also enjoy a level of public subsidy which has little to do with need and everything to do with log rolling by the Labour Party. Why should the inhabitants of Morningside enjoy much greater per capita public spending than the inhabitants of Middlesborough?

[anon]

Michael, just nit picking but using Middlesborough is probably not a good example since due to its location (i.e. the North of England) it receives a significant amount of subsidy anyway. Somewhere like Westbury would probably be a better choice.

[Braveheart]

The Scots can have the oil, the nukes and the seat on the security council. Will this keep them happy? For five minutes maybe...

[Richard]

I am a Unionist and proud! I am British not Scottish or English. My mother is from Scotland and my father from England. I love visiting Scotland just as much as I do England. My Unionism also extends to passionate support for Northern Ireland and Wales as well.

It is my support for the Union that partly drew me towards the Conservative Party, for when I joined we were proud to call ourselves The Conservative and Unionist Party.

[sjm]

Why are the Scots, Irish and Welsh allowed to whinge to their hearts' content, but the English are required to keep a stiff upper lip whilst handing over the contents of their wallets to said whingers?

[Jon White]

I used to be an unabashed Unionist, Richard. Sadly, the preferential treatment of the Scots and the Welsh at the expense of the English has somewhat soured that viewpoint. A Union should be based on equality, not one partner continually subsidising the other. (and at the very least, they - meaning the ignorant ravers from Scotland NOT the vast majority of the good people there - could be a bit more grateful.)

[malcolm]

An excellent piece from Allister.I wish him every success in his new role.

[voreas06]

While I don't particularily want the union to break-up I also would not lose any sleep if the Scots left the union. If the people of England and Scotland want to break up the union so be it. I am also not at all convinced by the arguments put forward in the article

Probable loss of the UK's seat on the UN Security Council;

It Didn't happen to Russia after the USSR split up, Why would it happen to England.

Without Scotland there is nowhere to base the nuclear deterrent;

Really, there is nowhere else in England or Wales or Northern Ireland to put it, sorry I just don't believe that. Even if it is true then we would need to just reconsider the means of deterrent

Around one-third of the British Army's fighting force is Scottish;

If this is the case this is just wrong anyway and Recruitment needs to be stepped up in England and Wales.

The end of North Sea oil and gas.

Maybe so but it has almost run out anyway.

The real question as I see it has to be asked what as an Englishman do I get out of the union?
At the moment it does not seem much, and with the unfairness of the West Lothian Question and the Barnett formula why carry it on?

[FJMS]

On the point about subsidies. Why is Scotland always picked on? N. Ireland gets a far greater subsidy. Nobody says that the North of England shouldn't be subsidised by the south.

I think people are forgetting that the united Kingdom is one country. In all countries some regions will do better than others due to simple demographic differences.

As one whole country I don't mind some regions doing better than others. It seems remarkably sensible to me.

[Meatloaf]

Oh God, are we going to go over all this again?

Here come the fanatics on both sides, on one hand we have the "Scots are all parasites and England is so hard done by" group, who instead of seeing reds under the bed see tartan, and and on the other hand the equally tedious "England is nothing without all of Scotland's endless oil and gas supplies" lot who think the UK is the cause of their own inadequacy.

This thread will have a two hundred posts by dinner time and they'll almost all be points - mainly bigoted, racist and intolerant, from both sides I might add - which have been rehersed and rehashed endlessly both on this blog and others.

[A personal view]

Not one person so far has mentioned that if we do let the bolshy Scots go it alone, that will be c. 55 less SNP, Labour and Lib Dem MPs for the Tories to beat when we are trying to form a govt at a General Election. If the purpose of being in politics is to win power, surely this is a no brainer?

[david]

Re the Oil & Gas.
First of all you have to sell it to somebody, England is the obvious customer for Scottish Gas and Oil. Secondly much North Sea gas is in the North Sea off the English coast. The latest Norwegian Gas pipeline comes in at Easington on the N.E. coast of England, wonder why! Prior to the opening of the St Fergus gas terminal, North Sea gas was pumped all the way to Scotland from Bacton Norfolk. The cost of pushing North Sea gas to Scotland meant that Scotland was getting gas below cost. British Gas did not differentiate (publicly owned company then) Scotland was part of the UK, Scotland got the gas!

[Patrick Harris]

Poor old Meatloaf, you must be the sort that sighs "anything for a quiet life" then curls up in front of "I'm a celebrity get me................". Well, I and many like me, are fighters, where there is injustice up with it we will not put, If the Political parties, of whatever hue, think this is going to be a passing fad they are in for a surprise. I don't dislike the Scots, Welsh or N. Irish, I dislike the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish MPs at Westminster who cannot or will not see the damage that devolution has done. I despise the 529 traitorous, English elected MPs who have forgotten that they represent the members of their constituencies and follow slavishly the party whip and nod through the unecessary and costly legislation pouring out from Brussels. The break-up of the Union is the only logical outcome, for me it can't come soon enough.

[Michael McGowan]

Northern Ireland is grossly oversubsidised too and both sides of the sectarian divide have every interest in keeping things that way. Having said that, Northern Ireland is a very poor part of the UK which has recently emerged from a 30-year civil war and whose economy is largely the hostage of organised crime. None of the above applies to Scotland. No-one has any problem with a subsidy formula driven by need .....i.e. not the Barnett Formula which is just a mechanism for buying Scottish votes.

[FJMS]

I would point out that the Barnett Formula was used throughout the 1980s and 90s. Didn't buy us many votes.

Re: A Personal View:

Yes and then the south can split with the north we'll be in govt more.... hang on if Westminster splits from the south we can be in Govt even more....in fact sod it I'm declaring my house to be an independent state....then we'll be in govt forever ...(evil cackle)!!!

[Michael McGowan]

Yes, I know: it was kept in place by the Tories as a last ditch attempt to shore up their crumbling position north of the border. That does not alter the fact that it cannot be justified on the basis of need: Lord Barnett has acknowledged as much.

[Mark Wadsworth]

sjm, the answer to your question (as if you didn't know it already) the poor Celts are a victim group, they are being oppressed by the cruel tyrannical English. The SNP or Plain Cymru are proud nationalists standing up for self-determination and independence. Hurrah!

Whereas you and I are mere "little Englanders" which I am proud to say Red Ken once called me to my face. Well me and the bloke next to me in the audience who asked the question at least.

As to North Sea oil, good luck to them. Tax revenues thereon ca. £10bn would just about cover the spending shortfall that they'd have if the Barnett tap were turned off overnight. And that has only been true for the past year or two as oil prices soared and the Goblin King slapped an extra 20% SCT on North Sea companies (they pay 50% corporation tax overall).

Allister Heath, I am a great admirer of your and David B Smith's work on spending waste and flat taxes, but on this one I have already made up my mind.

What last doubts I had were cast aside when I saw a speech recently by the Goblin King pleading for the Union as if his life depended on it ... so I am now 100% for full independence for all four constituent nations of UK.

EVFEL!!

[FJMS]

I'm not saying that the Barnett formula is right, in fact it's probably wrong. What people have to realise, however, is that under any system Scotland would probably get more; in the same way that the North of England, N ireland and wales all get more back than the south of England does.

[Michael McGowan]

The whole system of regional subsidy needs serious review.....not least because the Labour Party has spent the last nine years rigging it in favour of Labour voting areas across the UK. There are also very poor areas of the south....many of them rural./semi-rural. So it isn't a simple north-south, celt-non-clet equation.

[Mark Wadsworth]

FJMS, to Lord Barnett's credit, he has spent the last thrity years pointing out that it wasn't a Formula in the sense of x = y + z or anything, it was a "short term solution to internal cabinet wrangles" during the fag end of Jim Callaghan's government, i.e. a bung that has since become "sacrosanct" per David Davies in an interview with The Scotsman newspaper of about a year ago!!! A fat lot of good it did him an' all.

[Patrick Harris]

First of all give autonomy to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland and create unfairness to further create disharmony, when that is done create disharmony within England, when that is done, voila!, Tell everyone that they will be better off in The European Union with one currency (ha ha), harmonised taxes (ugh), Low inflation (as long as the hike in essentials such as gas and electricity aren't included), a European rapid reaction force (English contingent in first followed (maybe) later by the French, Dutch (only at week-ends) and the rest when they feel like it), the Eureka moment will be when Tony becomes President. Best of luck to you all and have a Happy Christmas.

[Jack]

Well of course if the UK broke up it would lose its seat on the security council, simply for the fact that the UK would no longer exist to sit on it, but as a previous post mentioned, a precedence was set when the Russian Federation replaced the Soviet Union as a permenent member.

[The Orator]

I cant believe this issue is being given the 'oxygen of publicity'. Let's give it the CO2 of the silent treatment. Since 1707 the Scots have had no power to vote themselves independence, just as Queensland has no power power to leave the Commonwealth of Australia. It doesn't matter if a minority, or even a majority within that region want to. Countries have a duty to stop themselves breaking up to preserve the strength of the whole. To suggest otherwise is loony left nonsense.

Abe Lincoln faught a war to keep the United States, originally independant from each other, together. It's no exaggeration to say that thanks to him "government of the people for the people by the people [did] not perish from the Earth", as four score or so years after that remark was made the United States of America came to the aid of the United Kingdom.

United we stand, my bonnie lads and lasses.

[Jonathan Mackie]

Drew @ 13.22 - The majority of the gas revenues are not English, they are very much Scottish. Under the Continental Shelf (Jurisdictional) Order 1968 the northern and central basins of the North Sea would revert to an Independent Scotland and with it around 90% of oil and gas revenues.

Scotland also has 25% of Europe's renewable energy sources - wind and wave power. It is the Saudia Arabia of green energy.

Now I am very much British and have no desire to see Scotland go it's own way, but we need much stronger arguments for the union than "there would be no place to float the nuclear deterrent." Is that what it has come to.

I suspect it is too late to save the union and the best for both Scotland and England would be to reach an amicable settlement for divorce.

[Oliver Henry Cooper]

The fact that the debate has come down to economic and military arithmetic is a sad indication of how far this constitutional crisis has progressed without proper address.

Other countries don't rely on such crude calculations, but that their political unity is an essential representation of their people's and politics' commonality. Scots doesn't need to be bribed into supporting the Union, nor do the English need to be told that they would lose international prestige without Scotland. Instead, if all British people were encouraged to discard the imaginary borders between them, they would consider the Union to be as apolitical, and as above questioning, as our democracy or liberty.

This used to be government policy; in the 18th century and 19th centuries, successive administrations dispensed with the separation of the old countries, and unashamedly promoted the British identity, such that my ancestors in County Cork felt as British as did those in Ayrshire, Hertfordshire, or New Zealand. Today, this is forgotten. Government officials prefer to fly the Cross of St George to the Union Flag, talk of Wales as a 'country', and revive an institution the abolition of which in 1707 was an integral part of the compact of Union.

However, just as government, particularly Treasury, action cannot be the sole solution to the problem of a lack of patriotism, so the government isn't the sole source of it. So long as our people aren’t agreed on our foreign or military policies, and so long as we don't force the next generation to swear an oath of allegiance every morning as the Yanks do, the primary source of national pride is something that is usually dismissed in political circles as being of little importance: sport.

On that issue, most Unionists are hypocrites. I'm in the tiniest of minorities in choosing not to take sides between the English and Scottish football or rugby teams; in this summer's World Cup, I supported Australia (which, as a Kiwi, is VERY painful). To be consistent, all those that oppose the division of the United Kingdom into four separate states should oppose the division of the UK into four separate 'national' football teams. Every time that an English 'national' side plays a game, in football, rugby, or cricket, there is a focus, provided free of charge, that undermines the tens of billions of pounds of economic advantage that all Britons receive from Union.

Whilst the issue of sport seems of negligible importance next to those geopolitical ramifications of the UK's expulsion from the UN Security Council, it plays a far greater role in persuading people of their nationality, of their identity. So long as the people as told, on a weekly basis, that their country is no country at all, they will require bribery to replace what patriotism should provide without question. In that sorry state, when the sums turn against unity, as the SNP suggest they do, there can be no recourse but separation.

[Meatloaf]

"Other countries don't rely on such crude calculations, but that their political unity is an essential representation of their people's and politics' commonality". So said Oliver @ 16:55

A very good point. As a Conservative I am passionately patriotic and pro-British. We shouldn't need to resort to such crude arguments and calculations to justify the existence of our own country. I would have thought that the defence and maintenance of the territorial integrity of the nation would be of paramount importance to any small-c conservative, regardless of what country they live in.

Of course there are discrepancies and it is now part of mainstream thinking that Labour's devolution foul up has created an unfair situation for England. That shows the progress the CEP has made in the last few years. But part of a relationship, be it between individuals, countries or constituent nations of a "union", is about being able to adjust, adapt and change. Surely we can resolve and modify these discrepencies to the benefit of England, and thus a more secure and comfertable UK, without some of the posion we've seen in previous posts here.

A very personal view @ 14:50 said Conservatives should support the break up of the UK because it would make it easier to get into power. Not necessarily. Even if we pretend that Scotland didn't exist, at the last election Labour still won 286 seats to the Conservative's 194. Yet the central argument is wrong. We should put the interests of the country above the interests of our party. This whole "I hate the union and we need to break it up NOW!" attitude might play well in the blogsphere, I think there are very, very, very few English or Scottish people who would thank any politician who assisted in the dismembering of their own country in the pursuit of power. I for my part would rather see a Labour Britain than an independent Labour/Conservative England and independent Labour/SNP Scotland.

On a side note, any ideas what would happen to Northern Ireland?

I await the hysteria and vitriol from both sides!!

[sjm]

Ooh Mark, I just love it when you call me cruel and tyrannical! and English too - well, given that I'm married to someone half-Scots, and I'm part Hungarian, part Russian, part Polish and part Slovak, guess that makes me a pure-blooded Angle! (or should that be a right-Angle?)

[Meatloaf]

"It is the Saudia Arabia of green energy"

A bad comparison, methinks.

It's like in UKIP's 1999 European election broadcast, where Nigel Farage said that by having a free-trade agreement "we could be like Mexico"! Er, thanks, but no thanks.

[Esbonio]

I grew up in the 60s and 70s of Anglo-Welsh parentage and proud to be British. However during that period the concept of Britishness came under massive attack from the left in post-colonial guise, and from the nationalists in Wales and Scotland. By the time the latter had got their way it seemed to me that the wonderfully warm feeling of Britishness, that there were certain things that were just not British, that we were all in it together etc etc, had disappeared. New Labour of course have learnt their misatke but it is too late. Meanwhile the cultural Marxists having destroyed Britishness had already moved on to their next target, Englishness. If only I could leave country!

[Esbonio]

Re "Without Scotland there is nowhere to base the nuclear deterrent": is that really so? There are other deep water ports in the England.

[AllEnglish]

"• Probable loss of the UK's seat on the UN Security Council;
• Without Scotland there is nowhere to base the nuclear deterrent;
• Around one-third of the British Army's fighting force is Scottish;
• The end of North Sea oil and gas."

These are not strong enough reasons why England shouldn't arise as a nation again. In fact many would probably think they are reasons for supporting English independence.

[James]

• Around one-third of the British Army's fighting force is Scottish

Not true!

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-10-31b.89635.h&s=scots+army#g89635.r0

The stats point to about 10% , I think max contribution from scots is around 13% .

[CONNELL]

To defend the Union we must repeal legislative devolution. Parliamentary representation requires equity across all 646 constituencies - equal power, procedure and practice.

[Ed Abrams]

Can someone please tell me just want benefit Scotland has added to the relationship with England, all the union has done is pave the road down south with gold for the Scots to abuse our good nature, our standing in the world. They have used England as a platform and what do we get out of it, ah yes, English Taxpayers kindly giving the Scots over £10 billion per year. The union, don't you just love it

Come on you blues isn't it time to demand

JUSTICE FOR ENGLAND .com

[Patrick Harris]

Meatloaf. The three main parties envisage the Union as being Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the "Regions", over my dead body. Despite Prescott saying "English is not a recognised nationality", despite Cameron calling The English sour, ignorant, disrespectful little Englanders (he will pay dearly for that little gaff). England is a nation, always has been and always will be. as for Ming, I'll rephrase that Who's for Ming.

[Huntarian]

I was just wondering when Connell would pop out of his basket with his usual well argued case for repealing devolution --- when bang on cue he posts!
The point that seems to have been generally missed in all of today’s posts is the fact that since the passing of the Scotland Act in 1999 whether we like it or not the United Kingdom is now a federal state. I campaigned at the coalface of the Think Twice/ No No etc campaign and surprisingly, in case you haven’t noticed, we lost the argument. I don’t remember Connell being a part of that campaign but he may care to correct me.
There are no easy solutions to the problems of federalism, but campaigning for repeal of the Scotland Act would succeed in achieving one goal only: the annihilation of the Tory party in Scotland.
The most obvious way forward is for the party in Scotland to adopt a gradual approach to fiscal autonomy. We should be advancing policies that will grow the economy, reduce government, and encourage enterprise and innovation. Rather than put the Union at risk, fiscal autonomy would strengthen it and consign the SNP to the dustbin of history.
There is no reason why a fiscally autonomous Scotland could not mirror the success of the Irish economy. Of course fiscal autonomy would be painful for Scotland in its early stages which is why it should be phased say over five or ten years.A commitment to fiscal autonomy by Scottish Tories would make us relevant again.
Until such times as we have a Parliament in Scotland with true accountability (rather than the glorified Parish Council we currently have) the Scottish economy will continue to under perform the rest of the UK and Scottish business will continue to be addicted to the subsidy piped into it by the barrel by the Laboural Democrat Executive whom have failed Scotland so miserably.
With fiscal autonomy none of the risks to the Union outlined above would arise. Scotland would play its full part in a United Kingdom and would compete with all other regions on an equal basis, because it would be forced to innovate, a concept beyond the comprehension of the great Broon and his Stalinist cronies.
Lets hear some quality economic arguments for maintaining the Union as we now have it rather than the carping and sniping so prevalent above. Let’s hear and how we can improve the relationships between our countries by improving the devolution settlement, and recognising where we are now. As the Business concludes its not divorce that is needed it is Resolve.

[Richard]

I am a Unionist but I dislike the subsidy going to Scotland. Cameron should call for this to come to an end. If Scotland broke away they wouldn't get it anyway so it won't make much difference.

[Henry]

If there was a way of explaining the lousy treatment that the English have suffered since devolution, which involved windmills and icebergs, Cameron might be interested, but as its just boring England's cancer patients and OAPs, he doesn't want to know. They appear to be expendible as far as the Tories are concerned and such trivias only serve to distract their great leader from saving the planet.

Whatever happened to the good old days our grandparents harked about, when politicians were interested in serving the people who elected them and not just using their taxes to fund their global celebrity ambitions? Have those days truly gone forever?

[k young]

I think it is excellent that Independence for England will lead to a diminished state.
No need for foreign wars and nuclear subs.
It might also lead to the end of the commonwealth,where british mp's go to give away our hard earned cash to nuclear powers like pakistan and india.We can then leave the EU.roll on.

[don beadle]

The Union is facing the prospect of disinregration. To save it the English question must be solved and all the major parties should stop their ostrich like approach and join in the English Constitutional Convention to find a solution. Some form of devolved English Parliament with an English Executive seems to be essential.

[Denis Cooper]

"... despite Cameron calling The English sour, ignorant, disrespectful little Englanders". Only some of The English:

http://www.conservatives.com:80/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=132019&speeches=1

"We should not forget that Alex Salmond couldn't ask for more effective allies in his campaign to break up the Union than sour Little Englanders who cry 'good riddance' when independence for Scotland is suggested."

[k young]

why does the ukip call itself the ukip when they are only elected in England by English people?

[Opinicus]

Better Off Out

If Business cant come up with any better arguments than that the Union is finished.

I have never understood what the point of a seat on the Security Council was for except to burnish the egos of some of the Quislings in the FCO.

We could base the nuclear subs almost anywhere or just dredge Plymouth a bit deeper if we really must.

The Continental Shelf order needs to be repealed and the border adjusted under international law which says that the sea border follows the land border which is virtually North/South at that point because the UK isnt actually N/S but NW/SW aligned. Further, if it came to independence we should invite Shetlands/Orkneys to become separately independent with English Diplomatic and Defence protection. Orkneys/Shetlands have been British ie aligned with England, 50 years longer than they were aligned with Scotland.

We dont need a large army. England is a peace-loving country.

Better Off Out

[Henry]

K young said - why does the ukip call itself the ukip when they are only elected in England by English people?

UKIP could change their name to the United Interstellar Galactic Vogon Party, in Scotland and Wales, because it wouldn't make a jot of difference to their relevance in those countries.

[Dave J]

"There are no easy solutions to the problems of federalism..."

Define "easy." Federalism may not be "easy" -- nothing worth doing in politics ever is -- but it is simple, at least to people who haven't lived their whole lives with no conception of anything but a unitary state. As I know I've said here and elsewhere before, the UK's constitution is going to become a balanced federal one (i.e., with equal devolution to its component parts) or it is, sooner rather than later, going to come apart. That's not a normative argument for what should or shouldn't happen: it's simply the reality of the situation that you're confronted with and have to deal with.

[comstock]

"Probable loss of the UK's seat on the UN Security Council;
Without Scotland there is nowhere to base the nuclear deterrent;
Around one-third of the British Army's fighting force is Scottish"

I simply can't believe these three are being touted as DISadvantages!

If our government (red or blue)has got nothing better to spend their money on than nukes and soliders to go warmougering, I feel sorry for them.

If this is what Scottish indepenance means, bring it on!!!

[Oberon Houston]

What a good thread.

The more I think about this the more complex I think things are. Post war Britain has gone through many tensions and changes. But good times and stable times over long periods of time lead to complacency. Nice problem to have, but the result is nobody cares about voting, powerful politians who are associated with the only interested (an therefore really active) groups such as the unions and dissafected folk who enter positions such as teaching on a 'mission'.

In Scotland they have sleep-walked into a nightmare. Brown may have thought he was being sneeky in getting devolution through on a fleeting instant, a tiny window of opportunistic opportunity ocurred in 1997 to ensure Labour never lost in Scotland. Well he got his way, but the consequenses of this he could never anticipate. The destruction of British 'values' has ocurred not because of their faults but because complacency has ruled, more or less, since 1945. Whether or not this is a bad thing is hard to tell, but as a Conservative, I would prefer less change!

[matt wright]

The Union is important to all those countries in the Union. I say this as someone with a rare old mix of blood and family from all 3 nations in the Union. Those people that talk down Scotalnd (and Wales) and try to create division damage all of us. The statements fro some about England merely bankrolling Scotland ignores analysis that could be made about how different parts of England are bankrolled in compered with other parts of England! Those raguemnst lead nowehere and simply serve to create tension and divide people,

Matt

[matt wright]

Apologies for more spelling above....rushed typing.

Matt

[Meatloaf]

"K young said - why does the ukip call itself the ukip when they are only elected in England by English people?"

Yes, but they can't call themselves the English Independence Party as they don't have elected representatives from all over England.

I suggest they rename themselves the "Midlands, East of England Euro Region, London, North West, South East and West and Yorkshire Independence Party"

Rolls off the tongue, don't you think?

Incidently, if UKIP were to repeat their 2004 European election performance in Scotland next year, they could get 6 MSPs elected. But they won't.

[Henry]

Matt, don't be ignorant. Different parts of Scotland also get different funding.

England is a nation and as such, deserves equal treatment to the other nations. Equal funding for England and distrubution within England will be decided by an English Parliament and a government elected in England, not by MPs elected in Scotland within the British Parliament and a cabinet stuffed with Scottish MPs.

England is NOT to be broken up into EU regions and the only reason it has got this far, is because the Tories have been headed by Scots for too long. Dave "theres a lot of scottish blood in these veins," and "the english are sour little englanders who don't show enough respect for scotland," Cameron, does not cut the mustard and before the next GE, the whole country will hear what he said about them.

[Sean Ireland]

as an irish man i deeply share scottish frustration with there continued link with the english. however, i think you must let the people themselves decide...it cant simply be a choice made by the politicians...that isnt democracy..