Lord Forsyth: England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009

Lord Forsyth was interviewed last night by Andrew Neil for BBC News' Straight Talk.  In a wide-ranging interview in which he attributed his political conversion to the Adam Smith Institute and urged the party to cut taxes for low income workers, the last Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland urged David Cameron to join with Wendy Alexander and other Unionists and hold a vote on independence next May, 2009.

Alex Salmond's agenda is quite clear, Michael Forsyth told Andrew Neil.  The SNP leader expects - "rightly" - that the Tories will win the next General Election but won't have many MPs from Scotland.  He calculates that that situation will maximise the chances of Scotland voting 'Yes' to independence in 2010.  Following Alex Salmond's timetable, Lord Forsyth argues, won't be in the interests of the Union.  Delay and uncertainty on this issue is "debilitating", bad for business, he says, and the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all.  A referendum should ideally be held next May and both the English and Scottish should be able to say whether they want the Union to continue.  [Presumably the Welsh and Northern Irish, too?].

Lord Forsyth said that he was confident that the Union would be affirmed in any such vote.  The SNP, he said, didn't come to power because of their opposition to the Union but simply because it was the party best placed to end Labour rule in Scotland.

Lord Forsyth implicitly criticised the Scottish Tories for joining Labour and the LibDems in the Calman commission that will almost certainly recommend more powers for the Scottish Parliament.  This will involve tax-raising powers for Holyrood and Scotland would then be "pretty close to independence".  Conservatives should "stop appeasing the nationalists" and let the Scottish people decide.

Lord Forsyth also said that he favours an end to the Barnett formula and its replacement with an "objective, needs-based assessment".  Something similar to the formula that decides support for local government should determine the amount of money that each part of the UK receives from Whitehall.

He also proposed a money-saving solution to the West Lothian Question.  All MSPs should be scrapped and existing Scottish MPs should run the Scottish Parliament and, on those same days (which, he says would amount to no more than one-and-a-half days per week on average) MPs from English seats would sit in Westminster, debating business that only affects England.  Tory MSPs "aren't very keen" on this idea, he joked, but it would mean that MPs for Scotland didn't become second class in their status.

ConservativeHome comment: "We are not convinced that a May 2009 vote would serve the interests of the Union.  With Brown so unpopular - see PoliticsHome.com's new survey of 5,000 voters - there might be a real danger that, given the opportunity, Scots would vote for independence as a protest vote against Gordon Brown.  Something similar happened in 1992 when France almost rejected Maastricht because of the unpopularity of Mitterrand, then French President.  It is true, as Lord Forsyth implied, that 'an English Conservative government' in 2010 might be just as disliked as Brown but an early vote would also be a massive gamble."

PS John Redwood blogs on these issues this morning.  On the day that Gordon Brown proclaims his commitment to the Union, Mr Redwood calls for the Prime Minister to address the "injustices" facing England: (1) By scrapping the balkanisation of England into Euro regions; (2) By introducing the solution to the WLQ advanced by Lord Forsyth above; (3) More fairness in the distribution of UK taxpayers' money; and (4) Acting against EU-rooted threats to the Union.

Related link: Unless we address the West Lothian Question the United Kingdom is in great danger warns Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Comments

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Iain no you are wrong: The PM has admitted oil revenue was 10 billion pound in 2005, So the 2003-04 figures are out of date by 2005 let laone by now, that 10 billion figure has risen dramatically since by atleast 5 billion. I have already pointed out that the government manipulated the facts in the seventies against Scotland, and they would do it again. So you have to take government figures with a pinch of salt. So use your common sense. Plus the killer point is that England does not make profit the whole of the UK is in deficit. You fail to point out England does not make profuit at all. England spends more than it puts in. The whole country is in deficit, and has been for many years now. England is in deficit there is a budget deficit for the whole of the UK. I stand by my point that due to high oil prices Scotland is almost certainly now the only nation of the UK that makes a profit.
The fact Sxcotland has 57.7% public spending does not matter as due to the oil tax revnues scotland makes a profit. Sweden had 60 % government spending when it was one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. So what does that have to do with anything. You can have 10% public spending and be the poorest.

The Scotsman newspaper was wrong. They confused higher public spending with subsidies Public spending is higher in Scotland but more money is raised from scotland dude to oil tax revenues.

[Iain]

Dirty European Socialist, is your oil revenue figure based on the 55 degree parallel where the current territorial division between England and Scotland's North Sea assets are drawn, and that runs through Newcastle, when it should be 100 miles north of that, and the border running in a North-North-Easterly direction?

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Iain : It is based on reality not on the little Englander map. If that map of yours was used then Wales would have all of the Irish sea if it had independencde as the border line goes straight up, and England would have none of it. That is not sensible logic.

Independent Online edition December 2005 By the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters

The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.

Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98% dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development.

So yes on the England gets everything map Scotland would have no oil. But you might as well let

[Ken Stevens]

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST | May 13,15:51

Taking your interpretation of the facts & figures at face value (- that in no way implies that I am challenging them),and referring back to your previous mention that you support the Union, what do you see as the advantage to Scotland of such union? .. and what improvements might you wish to see to such an arrangement that reconciles the interests of all the constituent territories?

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

If you look at a Scotland England map on google earth, magnify the satelite photo for the border, and see that the border actually goes at straight just at the end of the beach area of the two nations.
So even under logic the border does not continue to go up. The border allready has been mapped out.
3-2 It is like 1967 all over again.

[Iain]

" It is based on reality not on the little Englander map. "

No need to get racist about it. But the fact is the 55 degree parallel goes though Newcastle which is nigh on 100 miles south of the border, neither is it normal practice to run the border along lines of the parallel rather than the general direction of border. The fact is the 55 degree parallel was agreed just as a matter of simplicity, for it wasn't a revenue issue, as the revenue was going to the same Exchequer. Scotland declaring independence changes all that, and rather than agreeing to a border for simplicities sake, it means that the border will have to be redrawn to reflect the national borders and the direction of travel of the border.

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Ken Stevens I support the union. I just feel that many Scottish people feel British too. What advantange does the east coast have for being in the same nation as the west coast.
I support the UK for the same logic I support the EU.
I would have regional assemblies for England with equal powers to the scottish parliament. The welsh would have the same too.
An elected president too. With maybe further controls given to the federal regions and nations. This would help England as the north is dominated by the south. Plus it would ensure we do not have celtic nations v england, which would split the union. It would often be Scotland and the north west v South east and cornwall.

[Jonathan]

@Dirty European Socialist

Here is the publication from our very own Scottish government
www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/00-01/00015es.pdf

£1billion! I do wish you would check your facts before attacking me. £45b in total since 1975.
You are including corporation tax on the oil firms . But they are taxed where they are domiciled, which may not be Edinburgh.

And as I said an independent Scotland loses all the corporation tax and stamp duty of the ity of London. Looks like its back to prescription charges for you.

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Iain Not it does not it has been agreed by the convention of the seas. And the border as i have said does not travel in the direction you say. You cannot accept the border for land and then reject exactly the same border for water because it does not suit you. The border is set out and even the border set out between two nations on ordinary maps goes straight east not north east just off the coast of Scotland. It does not continue in a north westerly direction. Magnify the maop on a close up.

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Jonathan The corporations would have to based in Scotland for tax. You cannot be charged on corporation tax in England for money you make in Scotland, that is rubbish, if indepdence happened. What next will the Scottish charge English companies for money they make in England. It does not matter where they are based. If indepenndence happened the corporation tax would be on what is done in Scotland. Are you saggesting England would tax them for earnings made in another nation. And Scotland would not. Why Why you get away with that?

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Jonathan How can you serously claim that England would be able to charge corporation tax on the earnings a company made in another nation. That is not how it works.
You have to count corporation tax receipts from oil as Scottisbh eanrings even if that company is based in England. No one would claim that money the royal bank of scotland is taxed on in England is money gnerated in Scotland. You are playing the facts for you onw case.

[Ken Stevens]

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST | May 13, 16:30

"I would have regional assemblies for England with equal powers to the scottish parliament. The welsh would have the same too."

I think that one is dead & buried. If the price of Union is to emasculate and fragment England, then it is not a price worth paying.

Might begin to be feasible if removing the present discriminatory nationhood element, e.g. Scotland followed suit by abolishing Holyrood and localising to Highland and Lowland Regions, or somesuch. On the other hand, I don't share your enthusiasm for the EU and would therefore be dubious about regionalisation because of that context.

Scotland is undoubtedly a historic nation; England is undoubtedly a historic nation. Anything that nurtures the one whilst denying the other is simply not an option.

I am English. I used to be British. I would like to be British again - but not by sacrificing England.

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Ken Stevens But they would be English regions . If they were given the suffix English national region would that suffice. Why should England not be fragmented. I think that is price worth paying. And Scotland and England are allready emasculated in the union. I do not see why fragmentation is emasculation. England should have regional assemblies it would be good for the country. And you could have round table or some such for the English assemblies with a rotational first minister of England. But the regional element would be good for competition.

[Ken Stevens]

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST | May 13, 17:16

"Why should England not be fragmented."
Why should it be?

"I think that is price worth paying"
Nope, never.

"Scotland and England are already emasculated in the union"
If the whole is less than the sum of the parts then the union is debilitating and should be ended.

"I do not see why fragmentation is emasculation"
Then you would have no difficulty regionalising Scotland in like manner?

"..rotational first minister of England.."
Not while you had a single rotund first minister of Scotland.

"But the regional element would be good for competition."
Even if I was clever enough to comprehend why that should be so, I'm not prepared to have my nation dismembered for commercial advantage.

[David McEwan Hill]

The GERS figures quoted by Iain are a political exercise not a fiscal one and were blown out the water as soon as they were published. No sensible economist takes them seriously. Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett, perhaps the world's pre eminent expert on Government finance, stated that if they were an accurate reflection of Scotlands fiscal position they would represent "economic mismanagement of Zimbabwean proportions." The disgraceful "Scotsman" newspaper is fanatically opposed to Scottish Independence and prints this rubbish like gospel. What does "attributable" mean in the context of the statement he gives? North Sea Oil revenues in this year may reach £28 billion.
Iain also ignores the fact that the UK runs an annual budgetary deficit which is per capita higher than Scotland's budget deficit. Scotland's budget deficit (if it actually exists as the GERS figures are unsound) does not mean at all that England subsidises Scotland. This is economics for the kindergarten (which is about the Scotsman's pathetic standard).
I suggest Iain looks up Jim and Margaret Cuthbert who have worked as Government economists and are experts on the Scottish economy and takes some lessons before he assaults us with more of his simplistic economic nonsenses.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Don't know whether you are right or wrong about this Mr McEwan Hill and quite frankly it's too late in the day to look things up. But I do remember a few months ago you made anumber of assertions re Scottish subsidy from England that turned out to be total fantasy and were not a good advertisement for your integrity.

[Dave J]

"...98% of UK oil is in Scotland."

Only according to the current maritime boundary as fairly recently shifted by the UK Parliament gratuitously in favor of Scotland. If the UK were to be dissolved, the border would have to be renegotiated to conform the pre-1707 lines out to accepted international offshore standards.

Further, as is rarely mentioned in discussing this, if the Union were to end, I suspect there would be a considerable chance of the Shetlands seceding from Scotland and either declaring independence or seeking to rejoin Norway. There goes a considerable percentage of your Scottish North Sea oil.

[ChrisD]

Sorry David J, but that is a new one on me!
Watching some on this site turn cart wheels trying to dump Scotland while trying to keep its sea is bordering on farcical.

[Iain]

No ChrisD just trying to ensure that when the Union breaks up an independent Scotland doesn’t walk off with English assets, and the good people of Newcastle don't wake up to find that they can't sail down the Tyne to the sea because its been designated as Scottish territorial waters, for that is what the current territorial division amounts which is drawn along the 55 degree parallel.

But as to the money side of matters, personally it is incidental to me for the most important matter is constitutional and democratic, and if paying some CeltGeld to get some interfering Scots out of English issues, then that would be money well spent.

[dirty european socialist]

Iain These are official borders not borders you can redraw there is no logic to your argument. The newcastle issue was only done a few months ago so do not use that to invalidate offical borders drawn up before. Pklus the scottish are nopw oaying for englishh rivers. I would expect to ebnsure they do not just dump rubbish in them. And the border does not continue in a north easterly direction it goes in a easterly direction. Look at the map in close up. Or are you too scared too. Magnify the end of the map. IT DOES NOT GO IN A NORTH EASTERLY DIRECTION IT GOES EAST RIGHT AT THE END.
These were international borders drawn up years ago not the ones drawn up a few years ago for rivers. Do not con people with the facts. These are international borders and who is exaclty would you like to redraw the map. Let me guess England. These were borders set up by neutral groups you do not like the results so want them redrawn grow up.
And the border does not continue in a north eastelry direction. That would be ludicrous anyway. You could end up A city not having access to it's own coast if the border points in a slanted direction. If you owned. How can you seriously suhhest that if you say 100 miles east of Ediburgh that should go to England but under your bullying logic you claim that sea 100 km east of Ediburgh should go to England. That is bullying nationalism. Plus look at the west coast border of scotland and see your logic does not stand uop there. Hardly any of thwe solway firth goes to scotland.
No sea border is decided by continuing the direction of the end of the border.
Malcolm Dunn Why on earth do you support euro skeptic arguments for the UK and then put down another part of the UK with such glea. We talk facts you talk chidish nationalistic bullying.

[Jake]

re National Debt.

Professor McCrone does not mention Scotish national debt in his report. In fact there is no mention of any running costs to an independent Scotland. Servicing the Scottish share of British nation debts, including the £2.7 billion of yesterday, is certainly going to be a significant running cost.

It seems to me that consideration to the equitable splitting up of the British debts according to country must now be initiated at least in concept. Obviously, in any negotiations, England cannot be represented by the British government( particularly the present shower) because they are not us.

Given that a referendum - there should be one in England also -is now accepted as coming some time in the next 2 years, it seems to me that the British government should be giving consideration to facilitating the formation of an English negotiating committee.

[dirty european socialist]

There is no need for a negotiation committee. The creation of one would end the union. As it would send the signal there is a need for one. Scotland does not have one, it has a SNP government, but they are just a political party. If the union ended scottish MPs would leave the house of commons and a new government would be formed from the rest of UK MPs' Who would elect this negotation committe?
If independence came Scotland should get's per capita share of the debt. And of the army, embassies, and security services, andof debt owed to the UK, such as through northner rock.
The debt was implicitly mentioned in McCrone's report, when he said scotland could support itself he was ofcourse taking into account running costs what are you suggesting he did not take into account costs to run scotland, when how he have worked out scotland would have budget surplus.
The fact is scotland puts more into the union than its take out if you count the oil wealth the debt is due to the rest of the UK. But I still feel scotland should get a per capita share of the debt, but also per capira share of the amry, the emabssises etc:.
It is only offensive claims by English nationalists that make the issue difficult. Because they want to make new sea borders, specfically to take ridiculous claims on water that is not even off their coast.
On some chliduish claim that border keeps going north east, it does not anyway it turns east at the end.
If there is common sense then there is no need for a negotiation committee. The only justification for one would be to steal oil of the scottish economy by remaking the sea borders on an incredibly manipualtive bullying vindcitve greedy falacy, that sea of the coast of scotland should be given to england because the border slants up. What a joke. Ther rivers in Tyneside will not stay under scottish control, no one is suggesting that. But scottish areas will What is north of the scottish border is scottish. Up to Norway. End of story. What is south is English. You could just as well argue the border should slant down. as much of the area below the 55th paralle is scottish.

[Ken Stevens]

United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

"Article 7
Straight baselines
…
3. The drawing of straight baselines must not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general direction of the coast,"

"Article 15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other,
neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the
contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of
which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The
above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of
historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."

That stretch of coastline runs between NWish and SEish, so a median line would seem to run out NorthEastish.

[Iain]

"That stretch of coastline runs between NWish and SEish, so a median line would seem to run out NorthEastish."

Of course that is only a fall back position if our claim for the return of the Lothian’s as rightful territory of England, taken by David 1 of Scotland in an unprovoked invasion of Northern England while our backs were turned combating the Viking attacks (isn’t that always the case?) is not successful! ;-)

[Ken Stevens]

The following map might possibly be a starting point in negotiations of maritime boundaries:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20053153_en.pdf

THE RENEWABLE ENERGY ZONE (DESIGNATION OF AREA)(SCOTTISH MINISTERS) ORDER 2005

Iain | May 14, 15:47
.. or banish the Scotti back to Ireland whence they came and eliminate the problem. OK, the Angles had to retrench their northern border from the Tay to the Forth when they came second against the Picts at Dunnichen but at least we would have retained Easterhouses.. and Bathgate, and Drumchapel... oh well, just as well we didn't :-)

[ChrisD]

"If there is common sense then there is no need for a negotiation committee. The only justification for one would be to steal oil of the scottish economy by remaking the sea borders on an incredibly manipualtive bullying vindcitve greedy falacy, that sea of the coast of scotland should be given to england because the border slants up. What a joke"

It is as I said further up thread becoming farcical to watch some who are desperate to dump the Scotland land border now saying that they are entitled to keep some of our sea boundaries. This would be opening a can of worms where I suspect that they would get little support from the international community.

"The following map might possibly be a starting point in negotiations of maritime boundaries"

Why is there a need for negotiations on maritime boundaries when international law should come into play? Will you or others feel the need to review the Norwegian sector as well? If you are going to start rewriting the rules, will you be expecting support from other countries who might not like the direction you are taking?

[Jake]

"There is no need for a negotiation committee. - - - - Scotland does not have one, it has a SNP government" DES

You are not making sense DES. The Scottish negotiating committee would be none other the the Scottish government or some appointed appendage of it.
England has no such comparable body and thats the point.

By the way, the agreed method of establishing maritime boundaries(UNCLOS) generally takes 6 equidistant points at agreed distances either side of the border where it touches the sea and plotted out to sea such that it establishes a median line -
which would go north east.

[Iain]

"It is as I said further up thread becoming farcical to watch some who are desperate to dump the Scotland land border now saying that they are entitled to keep some of our sea boundaries."

No one is trying to dump the land border between Scotland and England, ( other than to register England's claim to the Lothians ) only to make the sea border relevant to the land border, for it is unacceptable to have Scotland claiming territorial control over areas of the North Sea which would mean the Newcastle people asking Scotland permission to sail out of the Tyne!

[Ken Stevens]

ChrisD | May 14, 16:42
"Why is there a need for negotiations on maritime boundaries when international law should come into play?"

Because international law (i,e. UN Convention on Law of the Sea, Article 15, extract above) infers efforts at such agreement. I was merely suggesting that an existing delineation established for other, UK domestic, purposes (as also mentioned above) might be a start point for discussions as, in effect, it already is a de facto boundary agreement between two nations. It could transpire also to be the end point for such discussions, being accepted nem con by both parties.

There was absolutely no implication in my comment about rewriting rules. I merely cited those that already exist internationally. Don't shoot the messenger, Guv!

Territorial boundaries only extend out 12 miles, anyway. Further extension relating to 200 mile Continental Shelf jurisdiction etc is however subject to similar adjacent/opposite States rules, with provisions regarding agreements and arbitration under international law. You'd perhaps best settle for the southern boundary of the Scottish North Sea zone indicated on that map, otherwise the line would continue northeastwards, thus cutting off a little bit of your present zone.

Such zonal agreement already exists between UK and Norway (and other States), so I don't understand the relevance of that point. This aspect of debate relates to divvying up the present overall UK Shelf area.

That is a oversimplification for the sake of (relative) brevity but the essence is there.

[Dave J]

"...as, in effect, it already is a de facto boundary agreement between two nations."

It's not de facto, but de jure as to whose law governs and whose courts have admiralty jurisdiction. That's been the case ever since 1707, since despite being part of the UK, England and Scotland have kept separate judicial systems and English and Scots law remain quite distinct.

[dirty european socialist]

Ken Stevens Nope your ideas point out what i have said the border should go north to scotland and south to england. It argues that the direction of the coast not the direction of the border. Plus the border has allready beeen set.

Iain Rubbish. Northumbria was also part of scotland so was berwick you cannnot argue for changes in the border from, 100's of years ago. You are using manipulative logic. You might as well argue England should given back to normandy.

Ken Stevens The scots were not from Ireland that is a creation myth. The XScottish kingdom is just the pictish kingdom with it's name changed. Evidence clearly shows The kings of scotland were the same line that ran the pictish kingdom. You might as well claim the english should sent back to germany, or denamrk. The scottish kingdom is still bascially the pictish kingdom of the past, there have been name changes to change of national language But the scottish nation is as much the pictish nation as the EU is the EEC. Look up the history books. Ireland did not conquer soctland.

[Ken Stevens]

dirty european socialist | May 15, 11:13

"Ken Stevens The scots were not from Ireland that is a creation myth.... etc."

Calm down,d.e.s. Just a little jocular aside, as no doubt was Iain's historical reference.

Whatever the historical facts/interpretations, it's far too long ago to have any relevance now.

Anyway, you're all from Scythia and utterly destroyed the Picts, according to the Declaration of Arbroath 1320 ;-)