Earlier today a Policy Group established by the Scottish Party reported its findings. Those findings will be debated at a special conference next Friday. At the heart of that debate will be the Group's suggestion that Scotland embraces 'fiscal autonomy'.
The report unpacks the problem of fiscal accountability as six bullet points:
- "the major disadvantage of the current devolved financial arrangements is that politicians in the Scottish Executive are not responsible for raising the money they spend;
- because the bulk of our taxes are sent to the UK exchequer, there is no link between the taxpayer and the money spent by the Executive, and there is no direct link between the politicians and the tax raised;
- the Scottish Parliament lacks the powers necessary to encourage fully the development of a successful Scottish economy;
- only the levels of council tax and business rates (non-domestic rates) are determined, raised and retained in Scotland;
- the current devolved financial arrangement does not adequately fund our public services, but is capable of delivering a windfall, e.g. the proceeds from the recent increase in National Insurance Contributions;
- whatever money comes to Scotland by way of block grant has to be spent, which has led to an increase in unplanned expenditure."
Possible solutions to this are set out in four bullet points:
- "the direct link between the taxpayers, the politicians and the money they raise and spend should be restored, retaining the taxes raised in Scotland;
- the Scottish Executive should then set tax rates consistent with the needs of the economy and with regard to the optimum levels of public expenditure necessary to fund the public services;
- lowering tax rates would result in higher tax income and encourages investment and innovation;
- the tax proceeds from the economic growth should be retained in Scotland and not retained by the UK exchequer, as at present."
Will this be another Tory report that is quickly spurned by those who commissioned it? In any case... what do you think about this recommendation?
The Party which I joined was The Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party. I cannot believe this suggestion.It really leaves us Unionists now without a Party if this comes to fruition as Party policy. The battles I have fought all these years only to find that this new bunch in the Scottish Party have gone native.The vast majority of them of course have never won an election and are being well paid for attending the joke factory which is my term for the Holyrood parliament. Will the last Tory to leave Scotland,turn out the lights!!
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 20, 2006 at 16:15
Sounds like a good idea to me. Scotland under this plan will need to retain most of the remaining North Sea oil revenues if it's to avoid immediate fiscal collapse. Under the plan, Scotland could maintain higher spending than England, but would have a genuine incentive to become a 'Celtic tiger' before the oil runs out; which its strong skills base makes it eminently suited to. Also, removing the massive English subsidy ought to decrease resentment from south of the border. Of course the risk is that Scotland's inept politicians would adopt a high-tax, low-growth approach and waste its human capital until the oil's gone, then turn to the EU for the massive hand-outs. Still, it seems worth the risk - Scotland has several natural advantages over Ireland (more natural resources, a more scientifically skilled and higher median IQ workforce) and should certainly be able to emulate the Irish model.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 20, 2006 at 16:16
SNP leader Alex Salmond's reaction: "Even the Tories are now bending with the independence winds of change. There is now a growing momentum behind independence which even the Tories cannot resist. The problem with this policy paper is that it's clear that the Tories are not adopting this stance out of conviction or principle, but because they are an endangered species in Scotland who are being buffeted along by prevailing opinion."
Posted by: Editor | October 20, 2006 at 16:24
Yippee!
The SNP did a report recently that claimed, in all seriousness, that Scotland did not need any subsidies from England or the Barnett Formula, provided it could keep all the oil tax revenues. Maybe they are right.
Seems fair enough to me (English taxpayer).
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | October 20, 2006 at 16:24
er - any chance of fiscal independence for England ?
answer - of course not !
Don't be silly . You must realise that the function of England is to be an everlasting milch cow for the British government to plunder so that vast amounts of money siezed from the English untermensch can be sent to the glorious celts
Its for the good of the United Kingdom you understand .
And while we are on the topic will you please not mention that unpleasant word
( I mean En----d) . Its horrid .
Say Britain instead .
Posted by: Jake | October 20, 2006 at 16:40
Under this idea who pays for defence and how? Is there to be a federal tax for anything - EU contributions (Scotland itself is not a member any more than England is; Foreign affairs - diplomatic and consular? Must be other items.
WHY should Scotland all the oil revenues. All the oil is not in Scottish waters - unless you have a tame cartographer!
I cut my teeth too in the Scottish Unionist party (based Mornington Crescent in Edinburgh) and this is so far from Unionism as to be unrecognisable!
Posted by: ratbag | October 20, 2006 at 16:54
Jake - my understanding of 'fiscal independence' for Scotland is that England no longer has to subsidise Scotland. :)
Ratbag - obviously Scotland would have to pay for defence. The UK does do rather well out of Scotland defence wise though, in particular it apparently costs 1/10 as much to recruit a squaddy in Scotland as in England, and their fighting quality is at least as good. So it might be reasonable that Scotland contribute a bit less than the ca 10% its population warrants, but that's very little money anyway compared to health & welfare.
It's a long way from Unionism, but most Scots have lost interest in the Union except as a way to fleece south-east England, and the English know this. Something has to give eventually.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 20, 2006 at 17:06
Oil revenues .
Some of those oil and gas revenues are attributable to England - and by the away we need a review of the maritime partition line between England and Scotland - for that is what it is - recently quietly and surrepticiously move southwards by this Scottish dominated British goverenment . England cannot accept this no matter what the British political parties , including the Tory party , say . No one speaks for England , certainly not the British Conservative party ( which does not allow there to be an English Conservative Party , while specifically fostering a Scottish Conservative Party and a Welsh Conservative Party . )
A further point , fiscal independence should also imply a division of debt servicing responsibilities
ie that the British national debts be split up between the component countries of the United Kingdom with Scotland having to take on their share of debt .
Its time for them to be grown up!
Posted by: Jake | October 20, 2006 at 17:07
I am a Unionist but I resent subsidising Scotland and any other areas of the country with high state spending.
Posted by: Richard | October 20, 2006 at 17:35
"I am a Unionist but I resent subsidising Scotland and any other areas of the country with high state spending."
That's basically my position - though as I was born in Scotland and grew up in Ulster I've benefitted from such subsidy. I do think it's justifiable in an emergency situation such as the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland, and in cases of extreme relative poverty (since in a currency union the poor area can't devalue to grow), but neither now applies to Scotland.
Posted by: SimonNewman | October 20, 2006 at 17:40
If it means that Scots can ONLY spend what they raise in taxes - no Barnett or other redistributive formula - then this English person is 100% in favour.
Posted by: Dean | October 20, 2006 at 17:47
The SNP did a report recently that claimed, in all seriousness, that Scotland did not need any subsidies from England or the Barnett Formula, provided it could keep all the oil tax revenues. Maybe they are right.
Scottish people should forget their oil hobby horse. Taking the oil price averaged over the last 5 years, if Scotland got no subsidy from England and was allowed to keep all the tax raised on North Sea oil and gas (which would never be the case) Scotland would still be £7 billion a year worse off than under the current arrangements.
Only with oil at $100 a barrel and with all of the UK's rights transferred to Scotland does Scotland come even close to filling the huge void in its finances. Even with oil and gas at the ruinously high prices of recent months England transfers to Scotland more than the UK's entire tax take from oil. State spending in Scotland is higher than any developed country in the world at 52% and no matter how you cook the books Scotland cannot afford it on its own.
Posted by: James Hellyer | October 20, 2006 at 17:54
I'm split on this one. The idea of Scotland having to pay its way is attractive, but we must never forget that if we are not Unionists we are nothing.
On balance I think this is one report we shouldn't go with.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 20, 2006 at 18:08
Ths seems a reasonable attempt to find a Conservative solution to the WLQ.
If financial responsibility for Scotland is transfered to Holyrood, then it removes one of the major reasons for friction between England and Scotland.
Frankly, this is may be the last chance for the Union. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only the Conservatives can save the Union. If this doesn't end the rachetting of mutual resentment between to the two countries, then I do not see much hope for the Union.
Posted by: Andy Mercer | October 20, 2006 at 18:32
interesting to see amongst all the "england subsidising scotland" patter there is never any reference to the fact that Freedom of Information releases makes it pretty clear scotland susidised england in the 1970's and 80's. dont remember hearing much about the scottish untermensch etc etc then.
Posted by: scottish conservative | October 20, 2006 at 19:18
"Freedom of Information releases makes it pretty clear scotland susidised england in the 1970's and 80's. dont remember hearing much about the scottish untermensch etc etc then."
Possibly because we weren't aware of it?
Posted by: Richard | October 20, 2006 at 19:35
Freedom of Information releases makes it pretty clear scotland susidised england in the 1970's and 80's.
No they don't. They make it clear that if Scotland kept the rights to all oil revenues in the 70s it would have subsidised England.
There is, however, a substantial problem with this: most of the fields do not lie within UK territorial waters and continental shelf rights are not apportioned in the same way as territorial waters.
The oil rights are not apportioned by drawing a horizontal line coincident with the land border between two countries at the point they touch the sea. The exculsive zone would end up being split between competing entities: Britain, Scotland, Shetlands and Orkneys.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Scotland, in the event of independence, would have got nothing like the tax revenue from North Sea oil that the UK gets now as a whole.
Posted by: James Hellyer | October 20, 2006 at 19:46
Having looked at what is being posted so far,it really looks as if I should launch a new Party in Scotland and call it 'The Scottish Unionist Party'.I wonder if in the current situation,that I would get a lot of support.I happen to believe that I might.
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 20, 2006 at 20:12
Having looked at what is being posted so far,it really looks as if I should launch a new Party in Scotland and call it 'The Scottish Unionist Party'.I wonder if in the current situation,that I would get a lot of support.I happen to believe that I might.
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 20, 2006 at 20:13
Fiscal autonomy is a trap. An opportunity for yet more retreat. It is about the further disintegration of the UK.
Unionists must oppose it and offer the electorate the exit from legislative devolotion that they seek.
Legislative devolution must be repealed.
Equal representation of all electors in the UK is the only policy which is sustainable in our unitary parliamentary system.
Posted by: CONNELL | October 20, 2006 at 20:50
Fiscal autonomy is a trap. An opportunity for yet more retreat. It is about the further disintegration of the UK.
Surely it's about making local government work?
Posted by: James Hellyer | October 20, 2006 at 20:55
Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Now where did I see ...
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/conference/steelcommission.pdf
And not forgetting:
http://www.scottishunionistparty.co.uk/
Posted by: Penultimate Guy | October 20, 2006 at 21:27
Local Governmen work.That is a laugh when all central gov bodies try their best to subvent local gov. I could write a book on the actions of this lot in the joke factory in Edinburgh. The Tories ,when we were last in power at least gave Local Gov their place through the introduction of the Community Charge. The fact that it was opposed by the great unwashed and taken up by another liberal conservative by the name of MH, who took up their cause which led to the ditching of the fairest way of financing local gov.We have then finished up with the Council Tax, which still leaves the great body of those who use the services,not paying towards any of them. What about those on a fixed income. Yes,we tend to foget all about them.That is until you become one of them. I am totally sick of pandering to those who don't pay,won't pay while we law abiding folkj always pay more than our share.
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 20, 2006 at 21:41
Local Governmen work.That is a laugh when all central gov bodies try their best to subvent local gov. I could write a book on the actions of this lot in the joke factory in Edinburgh. The Tories ,when we were last in power at least gave Local Gov their place through the introduction of the Community Charge. The fact that it was opposed by the great unwashed and taken up by another liberal conservative by the name of MH, who took up their cause which led to the ditching of the fairest way of financing local gov.We have then finished up with the Council Tax, which still leaves the great body of those who use the services,not paying towards any of them. What about those on a fixed income. Yes,we tend to foget all about them.That is until you become one of them. I am totally sick of pandering to those who don't pay,won't pay while we law abiding folkj always pay more than our share.
Posted by: Sandbagger | October 20, 2006 at 21:42
For matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive it makes sense, and really there should be the same aims to devolve Welsh revenue raising to some extent and in England too, and Ulster - the position since 1979 has been towards Local Government increasingly raising it's own revenue so why not devolved government too?
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 20, 2006 at 21:50
Fetch me my scissors; I'm cuting up my membership card!
Posted by: James Watt | October 20, 2006 at 22:36
We need to look more towards Westminster accountabillity....long live the British Union!!
Posted by: Brian Cowgill | October 20, 2006 at 22:39
I have always considered myself a Unionist, but am more and more attracted to the idea of an Independent Scotland, not just in terms of Fiscal responsibility. Scotland is a great country, and one which I love to visit. But, I don't see why the English Tax Payer should continue to subsidise it.
Emotionally, I still favour the Union, but each time this issue comes up on CH I ask the question, "What are the benefits of the Union for England". Can anyone give me an answer?
Posted by: Jon White | October 20, 2006 at 22:59
As I have said before, Tony Blair told us that Nulab were going to rule on the basis of divide and conquer. They have done their best to stoke up anti-Muslim and anti-Western feelings with the whole headscarf debate.
Don't let them stoke up Scots/English antipathy! I as an English taxpayer am all in favour of Scottish fiscal autonomy. There is a fairly straight trade off between North Sea oil revenues and the Barnett "Formula". Good neighbours don't argue about such petty things!
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | October 20, 2006 at 22:59
Sounds like bolting the barnyard door after the horse has already gone. Scotland will be an independent country within the next 10 years. Only then is there any possibility of a Conservative revival.
Posted by: disillusionedandbored | October 21, 2006 at 01:19
If powers are truly devolved closer to communities the nature of the pro/anti Scottish/Welsh Govt debate is altered.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | October 21, 2006 at 02:21
Jon White @ 22:59 - ""What are the benefits of the Union for England". Can anyone give me an answer?"
Yes, I can. The fundamental strategic benefits for England are much the same now as in 1707. Because the English dominate the united Parliament, they can effectively control the whole island and coastline of Great Britain. Therefore the English can forestall the emergence of a hostile Scottish government financing and controlling its own armed forces which could be used against England; they can deny foreign powers the use of the northern end of the island as a base, and can instead use that northern end as their own base to project their own power; they are better placed to prevent foreign armies, agents or infiltrators landing anywhere on the island, and in particular can prevent Scotland being used as a back door into England. All of which makes England far more defensible and secure - which is basically what the English political leadership wanted in 1707, and which they realised they could only get through a Union of the Parliaments, the Union of the Crowns in 1603 having proved not only insufficient but actually counter-productive in the absence of a Union of the Parliaments.
Please don't anyone say that these strategic considerations are now irrelevant, unless they have a crystal ball and can say exactly how world events will unfold in the infinity of time available after they have recklessly dismantled the Union.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | October 21, 2006 at 09:54
Ignoring the economics, but looking solely at the political angle this is a dangerous suggestion.
We know from EU plans that the UK is to be split up into regions as part of the EU's grand strategy to end nations and make us all clones of the EU. Allowing Scotland to effectively succede and have revenue raising powers will only accelerate the EU's dirty work.
Indeed, turning to the economic, giving Scotland revenue raising powers and making them responsible for their own budget, may well result in Scottish taxes being higher than that of the UK and result in further inward migration to England, rather than the UK.
How will the borders be controlled and will we have the a silly season of trans-national NHS tourists, attempting to get better treatment next door.
Having given Scotland its own Parliament the proposal is logical. However, the step was motivated by EU considerations and was the first step in the break-up of the UK and the first moves to break our voting power in the Euro Parliament.
A referendum should have been held about the Scottish and Welsh parliament and assembly, and great care needs to be taken in this proposition.
Posted by: George Hinton | October 21, 2006 at 11:01
All conservatives should be scottish nationalists and want full independence. Its the only way the Scots will shake off their socialistic welfare dependent culture and take off economically like Eire (sink or swim). We might then get a conservative government in England and end up paying less tax. Here`s hoping!
Posted by: old right whinger | October 21, 2006 at 11:16
I always held the position if the Scots want independence they should be allowed to get it. Just don't expect England to pay your bills any longer.
And since in Europe the drive (see Czech/Slovak and Serbia/Montenegro) is in the direction of independence movements I say why not. Let's see Flanders, Basque, Catalunya, Occitania, Padania, Bavaria independent as well).
Posted by: Daniel | October 21, 2006 at 17:45
I don't think the German elite would allow Bavaria to become independent: their plan seems to be that every country in Europe will be split up, except Germany.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | October 21, 2006 at 20:01
George Hinton: The creation of the Scottish Parliament was 'motivated by EU considerations'? How incredibly delusional and as a Scot I find that deeply insulting; it's creation was the cumulation of the desire of the Scottish people, something which we as a party rejected at the time, to our shame and discredit.
Posted by: Afleitch | October 21, 2006 at 21:26
The irony in the reaction of the Scottish Tories leader Annabel Goldie’s initial response to her own Policy Commission’s report is not that she is already distancing herself from it, but rather that her position has been supported by the Scottish politician whom she once described as Margaret Thatcher’s nemesis in Scotland, namely Michael (now Lord) Forsyth. An irony indeed given the wholly laudable Tax Commission report issued in his name on the national political scene just last week.
Why then has Forsyth chosen to defend the indefensible i.e. the Barnet Formula, at this time just days after issuing such a widely acclaimed report. The answer to my question may indeed have many stands, but I would wager that at least part of it lies in the fact that Forsyth like so many other talented young Scots, headed south immediately after graduation in the70’s to carve out his career both in PR and in politics. Despite the fact,so I am told, he still maintains a small house in Scotland, he now has no political clout in Scotland. His base and employment has since graduation always been in London. Perhaps therefore he still could be said to share the now discredited Blair /Brown view that the way to buy off the SNP and Independence is simply to keep throwing and ever increasing share of the UK exchequer’s money at his whinging countrymen.
Certainly as S O S for Scotland, Forsyth never argued for a smaller block grant for his native land, quite the reverse if I remember.
Another strand of Forsyth’s reasoning might well be his constant demeaning of the Scottish Parliament, and his desire still to abolish it. Having been one of the many who stood shoulder to shoulder with him when he was in office, I have to say that its time Michael for you to accept that you lost the argument. Well you lost the election Michael in 97, it was us, your political soul mates who actually lost the referendum, as you were nowhere to be seen when the rest of us were campaigning for the No No vote in 1998.
None of us who argue for Fiscal Autonomy suggest that it can be achieved over night, of course it would require to be phased, probably over ten years, but unless and until it happens the Scottish addiction to subsidy and dependency will continue apace. Just look at the difference in the level of the Scottish block grant between 1997 and 2005/6, as Tom MacCabe ( the Scottish Exec Finance Minister) goes into the 2007 election with almost £900million of an under spend i.e. Labour election war chest.
Would Fiscal Autonomy be bad for Scotland as Forsyth and Goldie suggest?(an odd pairing if ever there was one) No. Sure some tough decisions would have to be taken as we graduated from the dependency culture of handouts to wealth creation and a vibrant economy; there can be no gain without some pain.
However the Scots have the capacity and the commercial ingenuity to overcome and there is no reason why over a ten year period, Scotland’s economy could not mirror that of the Irish Republic.
Would Fiscal Autonomy lead to Independence? Of course not, instead it would strengthen the Union. It would however make Scotland politicians accountable.
At a stroke it would make the SNP irrelevant, defuse English naitionalism, and it would inflict a crushing blow to the Brown Marxist culture of bribing the slumbering masses that Labour has trapped in poverty in Scotland for a generation.
The reality is that like it or not we now have a federal UK the time has come for thinking Scottish Conservatives to have the courage to make it work properly.
Will Goldie and her fellow MSP’s listen to her Policy Commission and the growing body of opinion both north and south of the border in favour of Fiscal Autonomy?
From the many postings on this thread it is clear that that if the Scottish Party doesn’t grasp the life line that Fiscal Autonomy offers it is only a matter of time until the English taxpayer imposes it. The real tragedy is that there won’t be many Tories left in the Scottish Parliament to see it.
Posted by: the_last_ranger | October 21, 2006 at 22:35
Personally I'd like to see a much greater degree of fiscal autonomy across the whole of the UK - ie a shift to local taxes, to pay for local services, under local control, as far as that's feasible. In England that would mean local and county councils, but if in Scotland people prefer to stop the process of devolution at the Parliament and Executive, rather than continuing down to a more local level, that should be their decision.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | October 22, 2006 at 10:53
Afleitch @ 21:26 - I certainly would never dispute that there was and is a feeling among the Scots that they want to run their own affairs to a much greater extent. However it is also beyond dispute that there is an EU connection. The eurocrats are adept at exploiting any opportunity to further the treaty commitment to "ever closer union" - after all that is their duty and an essential part of their job, which we pay them to do out of our taxes. National borders are seen as obsolete and an obstacle to European integration, and so there is a strategy to split the nation states up into euro-regions - first into euro-regions just within each member state, and later into transnational euro-regions. So of course the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh, London and Northern Ireland Assemblies, and the failed attempt to establish elected euro-regional assemblies in England, are all part of that "divide and rule" strategy.
Shortly after it was set up SEERA, the unelected South East England Regional Assembly, produced a sheet on "Background Facts", and until recently the same information was also in the FAQs on their website. This is part of what it said:
QUOTE
How did it come about?
The Regional Assembly and the Regional Development Agency were set up as a result of electoral commitments of the present Government based on the Millan report. During the 1992-1997 Conservative Government term, former UK European Commissioner Bruce Millan headed a Labour Party sponsored Commission on the implications of devolution for the regions.
UNQUOTE
The name of Bruce Millan may be familiar to some older Scottish Tories as the Labour MP for Glasgow Craigton, then Glasgow Govan, 1955 -1988, who held posts under Wilson and Callaghan - he was Scottish Secretary at one time.
He went to Brussels in January 1989. And what was his area of responsibility on the European Commission until he stood down on January 1st 1995?
"Regional Policy, Relations with the Committee of the Regions".
I know people who have made some attempts to track down a copy of the Millan Report to see exactly what he said, but they've only ever found references to it - eg in an article by Professor Tomenay, a strong advocate of euro-regionalism at the Jean Monnet Centre of Newcastle University.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | October 22, 2006 at 11:35
If Scotland became independent could Shetland & Orkney seek its own independence, taking a big slice of the oil revenue with it? Why not, if you can salami slice countries, when do you stop?
I would advise extreme caution when playing at nation building. Once things begin to move it is difficult to control the outcome - we in Northern Ireland have a bit of exprience on that front.
Posted by: Ulster Tory | October 22, 2006 at 15:13
As I said earlier fiscal autonomy is a trap.
It has nothing to do with the control of public money and everything to do with tearing the Union apart.
This is a diversion to prevent debate on the decision in September 1997 to reverse the historical Conservative policy on legislative devolution (oppose it/support it). Two points follow: Who actually took
the decision of September 1997 (not the membership)and secondly, perhaps it is time to ask the membership on this matter?
Posted by: CONNELL | October 22, 2006 at 16:29
As I previously stated in answer to your posting in a similar vein, do you actually believe that a majority of UK electors could now be persuaded to repeal legislative devolution-- or are you just arguing in favour of assisted political suicide?
Just in case you missed it we had a referendum in Scotland in 1998, in which an extensive band of Tory members including me, mounted and paid for the NO NO campaign. The immediate past SOS Michael Forsyth and the majority of the former Tory front bench were nowhere to be seen in this campaign as they were all too busy doing other things. The best that the party could offer us was Peter Fraser.
We lost the argument in the same way as we lost the 97 election.
If you want to argue in favour of making the Tory party more irrelevant than it currently is seen by all but the 16% ( on a good day) that we are showing in the polls crack on old boy.
Like it or not the day the Scotland Act became law we created a federal UK. The task of the Tory Party is to make it work better than it does, and the only way to do that is through fiscal autonomy. How else do you get accountability? If we in Scotland don’t advocate it and lead the debate it is only a matter of time before it is imposed on us by England as the Barnet formula is unsustainable.
What really bothers me about posts like yours is that you prattle on about the Union but seem incapable of advancing any tangible arguments to maintain it. Give me one good reason why the Union would not be strengthened by fiscal autonomy, and please don’t fallback on the usual paranoid euro crap.
Posted by: the_last_ranger | October 24, 2006 at 10:36
Last Ranger A pity England was not consulted on these major constitutional changes. The resentment in England may well have been less if the people in England had been asked about it and there has been an informed debate. But that could not happen as we might have noticed what was going on, and that would never do.
Well, I think at long last the English have woken up and feel cheated and undervalued.
The constant demand is for more powers for Scotland (today it is asylum and immigration to be controlled by the executive) leaves no room apparently for any mention of England and its equal rights to control its own destiny.
No, we are just expected to go along and accept second class status and the final humiliation is that we are told we are British and must still accept a Scottish MP as PM who tells us what to do in English education,health and local government with a fellow Scottish MP who is the English minister of transort who is a colleague of the Scottish Lord Chancellor of England (who has decided to abolish that post). None of them have any powers in these respects in regard their own countrymen.
Labour spent much of the 80's winding up the Scottish nationalist appetite to fight the Tories and defend their Scottish base. They told us that devolution would give no more powers to a Scottish parliament than 'a parish council' and it would strengthen the Union.
Well, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and many of the English unionists are now rather chastened and many now wish for English and Welsh independence from the mighty Scotland and her raj.
Can the position be recovered. It looks less and less likely to me. Scotland may give us a clue at the elections next year.
Personally I am caring less and less, and feel that if the real legacy of Nulab is the break up of the Uk then so be it.
Posted by: Blue2Win | October 26, 2006 at 15:50
I think it's more or less inevitable that Scotland will become independent in the next ten years or so, not least because the English are rediscovering their own nationhood rather than having it subsumed in 'Britishness'. Around here in London N1 you'll never see a Union Flag - but the St George's Cross was everywhere this summer.
An independent Scotland would hopefully have a more mature relationship with England than the current one, which mostly consists of resentment and envy.
Most importantly from a Conservative viewpoint - we'd very rarely have to put up with Labopur governments again! The Tory party should see the way the wind is blowing and hop abourd the indepndence bandwagon before they disillusion yet more English ex-Unionists like me.
Posted by: Islingtonmike | October 31, 2006 at 00:11
I think it's more or less inevitable that Scotland will become independent in the next ten years or so, not least because the English are rediscovering their own nationhood rather than having it subsumed in 'Britishness'. Around here in London N1 you'll never see a Union Flag - but the St George's Cross was everywhere this summer.
An independent Scotland would hopefully have a more mature relationship with England than the current one, which mostly consists of resentment and envy.
Most importantly from a Conservative viewpoint - we'd very rarely have to put up with Labopur governments again! The Tory party should see the way the wind is blowing and hop abourd the indepndence bandwagon before they disillusion yet more English ex-Unionists like me.
Posted by: Islingtonmike | October 31, 2006 at 00:17