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

[Iain]

I watched the interview of Lord Forsyth and thought he had some interesting ideas, on both constitutional issues and tax. Unfortunately the Conservative party is currently led by the Cameroons, who as we see have nothing to say on tax, other than dutifully follow Gordon Brown's high spending high tax regime, for one gets the feeling that George Osborne isn’t up top the task of leading any sort of debate to change Labour’s taxation policy, and they have nothing positive to say on the Constitutional issue, for in the time Cameron has been leader of the Conservative party he hasn't bother to raise the issue at PMQ's.

[Janet]

If only England had someone to stand up for it the way Alex Salmond speaks for Scotland. For too long all the parties have been spiking English tea with Bromide. Where is OUR parliament where English voices can be heard?

[Helen]

The only tragedy is that we in England will be left with Scots negotiating with Scots, over English spoils. And Cameron falls into that category, as those who heard his speech in Glasgow will know only too well.

[Iain]

Yes Janet, if only, for right now our supposed representatives are nothing short of a waste of space, for they have sat there and watched the young, sick and pensioners of England get discriminated against, and all English people made constitutionally second class citizens, yet we have hardly heard a whimper of protest from them.

This collective failure by our so called representatives makes the case for an English parliament, for having failed us so miserably, any Grand Committee or English votes for English laws won't the job of sorting out the Constitutional mess. For our MP's may pursue their constituents interests, and they will certainly follow their party orders, but the collective English peoples interests fails to get any representation at all in Westminster. That's why we need a Parliament, so that English people can vote for an Executive to represent their interests, and who they can hold to account.

[Helen]

Gordon Brown previously signed a pledge to always put Scotland's interests first and foremost and he has done exactly that ever since.

Cancer patients in England must either cross the border into Scotland for access to many life saving drugs denied to us in England, or remain in here and discover that the Labour Party they once supported is now headed by the Grim Reaper, who can't wait to snatch their death taxes to further bribe his own nation to keep him in charge.

There is a vile sickness at the heart of our democracy and the silence from the oppostion parties is deafening.

That Mother of Parliaments we were once so proud to boast of, is now just a sewer of rats. God help us all in England.

[IMarcher]

That both countries, not just Scotland (unlike last time!), should vote on the future of the UK, is obvious. But, in the event of a split, who is going to negotiate on behalf of England? The UK prime minister and de facto English First Minister Gordon Brown, and other Westminister MPs, who made a public pledge at the Scottish Constitutional Convention that "in all our actions and deliberations, the interests of the Scottish people will be paramount"?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Excellent piece by John Redwood (he was also the original source for removing IHT and not Osborne - with or without an 'e' - although Osnorne got the praise).
It is no surprise that it is beyond the wit or desire of the vote blue and go green wet Cameron to propound it. Redwood is one on the few Conservatives actually in the Conservative Party. That is why the EU sycophants (they try to tell us otherwise) in the Conservative Party Westminster Parish Council and the media try to ignore him.
Well put John. You just omitted to quote that we in England have to sell our houses to pay for the residential care of the elderly whilst in Scotland they can keep their houses. Nothing to do with the Scottish public - just the moral compassing, gerrymandering bribery by Scots politicians led by Brown and formerly by the one Cameron stood up and called for a standing ovation for (that will never be forgotten).

[Steve]

It should be remembered that £ngland needs Scotregion for absolutley nothing whatsoever and gains nothing from this now as of 1998 null and void "Union".

[Yet Another Anon]

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?]
A single country voting though presumably would be opting out of the union - none of the 4 nations voting on their own could reasonably end the union. If for example Scotland voted for Independence and the other 4 countries all voted for the Union then the UK would continue without Scotland.

[Dave B]

@Iain
The Spectator interview with Mr Cameron seems to promise tax cuts from a Conservative gov't:

"‘If you take the local elections, there was no doubt in my mind that it was easiest to campaign in those places where Conservative councils really did have a record of keeping the council tax down, or at least promising to limit the increase,’ he says. ‘I haven’t done the sums. But I’m pretty sure that the areas where we did best were those where we were able to say: look, we’re in government here, we are helping with the cost of living, we understand your problems and difficulties.’

The moral he has drawn is that low tax is a good strategy for re-election — but not when a party is in opposition and seeking power. ‘There is a world of difference between promising and delivering. These councils have actually delivered. Margaret Thatcher won elections not by talking about tax reductions, but by demonstrating that a Conservative government shared the proceeds of growth.’"

[John Leonard]

I support Lord Forsyth's proposals in that, all major constitutional issues should be decided by referendum and not by Parliament and that the Barnett Formula needs to be reformed along the lines he suggests.

However, I think providing tax raising powers and greater financial independence for the National Assemblies is inevitable, report or no report, and where he is summarised as saying:

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.

Whats seems quite an elegant solution initially is fraught with issues and trivialises the democratic ethos that is at the core of our political system.

Firstly, this is one area that must not be trivialised as a 'money saving exercise'. It is a question of democracy, self-determination and freedom. To do so shows utter contempt for the electorate and only benefits centralists, anti-democrats and Ken Clarke's 'ruling political class' (sic).

If Parliament want to save money then cut MPs allowances and expenses and cut the employment of political cronies in Quangos and other unelected government organisations!

Additionally, this suffers from exactly the same problems that EVfEL does (in fact it is EVfEL x 4). How would the relationship between the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subset of MPs be managed with the Government and Parliament as a whole?

Furthermore, it also suffers from exactly the same problems that the current Devolution solution suffers from. It would probably work to an extent if the majority party of the Home Nation subsets is the same as the Government but as soon as the majority party in the Home Nation subset becomes an opposition party then they can act in exactly the same way as Alex Salmond is acting (and prior to devolution Labour acted in the 80's).

Imagine the situation where we have a Conservative Government and Labour led Welsh and Scottish subsets (as seems likely in the next Parliament). It would be like turning back the clock to the 80's and would cause just as much discord as then.

Remember it was pre-emptive action on the Poll Tax in Scotland that did much to scupper it and undermine Margaret Thatcher's Government.

Add to that, that it would also reverse the improvements that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have received in terms of democractic representation. That would likely result in a general fall in quality of service to the electorate's of those Home Nation back to the level the England currently receives.

Finally, whatever is proposed must apply to all the Home Nations (as the editor correctly points out). How long will it take to negotiate the resultant iteration of the Northern Ireland agreement given it would take back power from them?

No, whilst it might seem a good idea on the face of it, it's just turning back the clock with a few tweaks. It is a regressive proposal and would not work. It just provides further propaganda for the separatists.

The only way to move forward and defeat the separatists is to move toward a federal style solution.

It won't be easy considering how all the major parties are dragging their feet and separatists in certain parts of the country now have a solid base and are advancing but it is the only way to stop the infernal bickering over what in reality are relatively simple matters that is hindering progress on the major issues.

This, like the EU debate, is an unecessary distraction which should be resolved for once and for all at the earliest opportunity so that our elected representatives can get on with the job they are supposed to do. To remind them - they are supposed running the country not playing politics with the national make-up of the Union and the constitution!

The great shame of this is that if the Conservatives took up the federalist or similar banner they could possibly be seen as great democratic reformers. However, at the moment they seem to be content with putting forward regressive tweaks and tinkerings, aimed at protecting the Westminster powerbase, that will only extend and exacerbate this infernal debate. Inevitably such an approach will fail and the separatists will win.

Continuing to peddle such ineffective proposals does no good for any of the Home Nations or for the Union!

[Ken Stevens]

"All MSPs should be scrapped and existing Scottish MPs should run the Scottish Parliament and, on those same days MPs from English seats would sit in Westminster, debating business that only affects England."

If he means that there would be a Scottish Parliament run by Scottish MPs part of the week; on those same days there would be an English Parliament with similar powers run by English MPs; and on the other days it would be a UK Parliament run by both; then I say
BRING IT ON!!!

This is the nearest thing to resolving the problem that any major party luminary has yet produced.

Barnett Formula must be scrapped, simply on the basis that it allocates preferential money on basis of nation rather than targetted need. If, say, Caithness needs additional resources on account of rurality then it should be dealt with accordingly, against same criteria as for other rural areas of UK. At the moment the system is tantamount to the rural less well-off of, say, Norfolk, donating cash to the more affluent areas of Edinburgh.

It would bring back some relevance to Scottish-elected MPs. They lost part of their responsibility to MSPs and (as with all UK MPs) a great lump of it to Brussels and one wonders what they currently do to occupy their time.

[Dave J]

"the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all."

The idea of ever fulling laying nationalist secession movements to rest is a pipe-dream. There are some people in Quebec who will never stop talking about it, and in Catalonia, for example, just as in Scotland. A referendum that votes no will marginalize them for a time. It won't ever make the issue vanish.

"This, like the EU debate, is an unecessary distraction..."

The fundamental nature of self-government is not a distraction from whatever "the real issues" might be. Those issues are meaningless without deciding who decides them and how.

"If he means that there would be a Scottish Parliament run by Scottish MPs part of the week; on those same days there would be an English Parliament with similar powers run by English MPs; and on the other days it would be a UK Parliament run by both; then I say BRING IT ON!!!"

I quite agree. Dual-mandate MP's are an elegant solution that have the bonus of doing away with a whole unnecessary boatful of politicians.

[John Leonard]

Dave J:

You miss my point and perhaps I was unclear.

The fact that politicians continue to prevaricate over these matters (wasting their and our time) is what is unnecessary. They should hold referendums with appropriate sun-down arrangements and put these issues to bed.

Let the people decide!

[Ulster Tory]

"England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009"

One flaw.

Despite thinking the Union revolves around them both, they aren't the only countries in the UK...

[Boy Blue]

Forsyth is just a dinosaur stuck in the 1990s, completely out of touch with Scottish political reality. Self-indulgent ramblings of this sort just give succour to the SNP and undermine the sensible, pragmatic approach being taken by Annabel Goldie in the Scottish Parliament.

[Ewan Watt]

I think Forsyth hits the nail on the head to be honest. The future of the Union needs to be addressed - urgently. The SNP have public backing over a referendum. Forsyth appears to see that the longer the Unionist parties dither, the quicker the SNP can prepare for a 2010 referendum, with or without support from Westminster. Salmond will set out his options and wait for the massive backlash from there being a Conservative government south of the border. Why else would he want the referendum by 2010? The Conservatives need to support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, be it through a plebiscite or not. Not only would this be far more transparent, but it could curry favour with the nationalist-but not independent minded voters. They do exist. This could also nip a lot of questions surrounding the West Lothian Question in the bud too. The Scottish Tories have never found a political constituency ever since attendance at the Kirk dried up. This could be part of the solution.

One thing is clear - the status quo is not sustainable. The quicker the Scottish Tories come up with their own solution, the better.

[Andy]

No unionist party can represent England purely because they have a unionist view. The SNP and Plaid Cyru as nationalist parties will fight tooth and nail for their respective countries equal rights.
Yet we in England have a bunch of union motivated pro EU Anglophobes.
Where is our English parliament? our English national anthem? You unionists have had plenty of opportunity to fight for England and the people of England yet have chosen to play 'lets be sheep'.

We English need an independent group to ensure you dont leave England carrying all the British national debt and not having Scotland or Wales walking from the table with a clean tally.

NO unionist should or can fight for Englands fair deal

unionist.....BRITISH NOT ENGLISH

[Better Off Out!]

What would happen if the Scots voted to stay in the Union but the English voted them out?

Those in London & The South East would be much Better Off Out of the Union as well as the EU. It would be one of the richest countries in the world. Why don't we leave and let the rest of UK to support themselves?

[ChrisD]

I am in fact loathe to intrude on the "poor wee us" mentality of the usual suspects that only ever seem to appear on this site when there is a Scots thread. Looking at what is happening in Burma this week, it just defies belief that some will peddle this kind of drivel in one of the oldest democracies in the World. It also means that we never get an effective and constructive debate going on this subject which is a real shame.

"That both countries, not just Scotland (unlike last time!), should vote on the future of the UK, is obvious."

That one made me laugh! Remember the 1997 GE and the Labour manifesto? You and everyone in the UK had a vote on whether the Scots got their Devolution referendum! Don't start whinging because they then went to vote in favour of it.

"If, say, Caithness needs additional resources on account of rurality then it should be dealt with accordingly, against same criteria as for other rural areas of UK. At the moment the system is tantamount to the rural less well-off of, say, Norfolk, donating cash to the more affluent areas of Edinburgh."

There are two flaws in your point, the first is that Caithness and Norfolk are simple not comparable, and to suggest that they are is a bit disingenuous of you. Secondly, the SNP are in fact to be fair, doing just what you suggest with regards making sure that the less well of rural area's are not neglected at the expense of more affluent area's of the country. Its a difficult balancing act, despite the beauty and wealth of parts of Edinburgh there are area's of severe deprivation.
If you paid attention to the area's the SNP were strongest, and where they also wish to take on the Labour party in their heartlands, you would realise that your argument has already been politically won and is in fact being implemented quite effectively.

[Opinicus]

I want to specifically question Conservative Home's comment on this made above. It is very rare for the Editor to counsel against a piece so magisterially.

Can the Editor assure us that he was not given a line to take by anyone from the HoC or CCHQ but this is entirely his own comment?

If so, is the Editor's argument that if the Scots are for Independence in 2009 and in 2010 that the best thing to do is to deny them any say until they have changed their minds?

If so, doesn't that make it the teeniest bit hypocritical to oppose Brown not granting a referendum on the EU Treaty for essentially the same reasons.

I am confused by the Editor's comment. Is the Editor?

Has the Editor

[Scottish Conservative]

forsyth has regaled us with this idiotic drivel before. he was undoubtedly an able politician but he has failed to accept the patent reality that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished; nor should it be. at the very least its abolition would require to be approved in a referendum which anyone with even the faintest grasp of scottish affairs can see is not going to happen - ever. and if it was abolished without popular consent i think independence would be inevitable. indeed in those circumstances i think independence would be desirable.

as to this idea that the referendum on independence should be held north and south of the border, thats fine if your asking the scots if they want to be independent and asking the english if england should be independent. fair enough. but if he is saying that scotland could only become independent if the ppl of england vote for it in a referendum then i dont think the old boy should even be taken seriously. is he honestly suggesting that scotland could vote for independence and yet be kept in the union against its will?

to those who would say yes, i ask you this: if the UK voted to leave the EU, and all the other member states voted to keep the UK in, would their votes be able to overrule the UK? After all UK withdrawal would impact the other member states just as scottish independence would impact the rest of the UK. And if this did happen and the UK was kept in against its will would u feel that was fair and democratic?

[Opinicus]

I think this whole issue could be the first real success of the blogosphere.

ConservativeHome has conducted a vigorous debate on the Scottish Question since early last year. The bigwigs of our Party have not so much not accepted our answers, as denied the Question. Yet slowly but with gathering force the arguments advanced here 18 months ago are gradually sinking into the consciousness of our leaders. Its been like watching mountains filter mineral water - or pygmies passing it.

[Ulster Tory]

Re: My comment at 18:00.

I see the author has added NI and Wales to the entry. Is that official, or merely guesswork?

[Jake]

The British Union is and always been a political marriage of nations. There are two parties to it and Ld Forsythe must be given credit for recognising the right of England to have an equal say in its continuation or not: ie that if one partner is to have a referendum then equity and democracy demand that the other also has the same with the same question. He must be commended for being just about the first person of stature- he won't be the last- to accept England's right to equal consultation on the matter.

Commended also for recognising the unsustainability of the Barnett Rules. They are unfair, undemocratic and based on unvarnished national discrimination. They should be abolished forthwith. His proposal for an "objective needs based assessment" I am assuming will aply throughout the UK ie to England also, something we have never had. Its time. We will also need an English establishment to fight the British government on a continuing basis to make sure we ger our fair share.

In the case of the Scottish parliament he is not correct and is being unrealistic. For the Scots the modern parliament is the recrudescence of the national parliament which the so unexpectedly lost in 1707. The MP's in the British parliament for Scottish constituencies are just that and are not percieved to be in any way to be an alternative Scottish parliament.
As for that same British parliament at Westminster, there is confusion in Scotland just as there is in England as to its nature but there is widespread acceptanc
(eg by Mr Salmond) that a totally separate parliament for England comparable to that of Scotland is the logical way forward.

[Dave J]

"he has failed to accept the patent reality that the Scottish Parliament will never be abolished; nor should it be."

I agree that that's the reality and I agree that that's as it should be. Where I disagree is in the idea that the Scottish Parliament needs to elect its members separately from the MP's that Scotland elects to Westminster. Giving the MP's of each home nation a dual mandate, and doing away with separately-elected MSP's, would not "abolish" the Scottish Parliament.

"...if the UK voted to leave the EU, and all the other member states voted to keep the UK in, would their votes be able to overrule the UK? After all UK withdrawal would impact the other member states just as scottish independence would impact the rest of the UK."

The situations are simply not comparable. The EU would continue to exist in largely the same form without the UK. But, as the Scots and the media alike repeatedly seem to misunderstand, there is no "rest of the UK" that would continue to exist as more than the sum of its parts. For one nation to withdraw would be to dissolve the entire Union unilaterally. England (including Wales as integral part) and Scotland were the parties to the Treaty of Union: without one of them, there IS no UK.

[Man in a Shed]

Lord Forsyth's ideas might save the Union.

If anyone is listening that is...

[David McEwan Hill]

Great stuff. It should be remembered that Michael(Lord)Forsyth was without doubt the best recruiting agent the SNP ever had and almost single handedly drove the Tory vote in Scotland down to its present level.
Why anybody listens to his nutjob wanderings I do not know.
I would hugely welcome a Britain wide poll next May for the simple reason that substantial anti Scottish sentiment manifesting itself in England on such a vote would hugely increase the support for the SNP position and blow away the fiction held to by the head-in-the-sand brigade in Scotland that the "Union" holds any deep or popular significance to the average English voter.
And it has to be pointed out that whether Scotland opts for Independence or not is soley a matter for the people of Scotland to decide. The opinions of the people of England on this matter may be intersting and even supportive but have no constitutional validity.

[ChrisD]

Keep it up David McEwan Hill, the enthusiasm of some in your party to help whip up that anti Scottish sentiment among a rather unpleasant minority will come back to bite you on your tartan backside North and South of the border......That is what could undo all Salmond's clever political manoeuvring, which up till now has been carefully packaged in a very positive campaign agenda.

[Iain]

"And it has to be pointed out that whether Scotland opts for Independence or not is soley a matter for the people of Scotland to decide"

I would agree, if Scotland wants independence its for Scotland to decide. What wasn't for Scotland alone to decide was devolution, for that effected us all, yet it was Scotland which got to re-write the constitutional settlement to its own benefit, whilst constitutionally beggaring the rest of us.

[ChrisD]

"What wasn't for Scotland alone to decide was devolution, for that effected us all, yet it was Scotland which got to re-write the constitutional settlement to its own benefit, whilst constitutionally beggaring the rest of us."

Please stop rewriting history to suit your own prejudices. I was aware of the implications of a Labour victory in 1997 regards a devolution referendum in Scotland and the possible outcome. Its not anyone else's fault, far less the Scots that the whole UK voted this incompetent bunch into power not once, but three times!

[Opinicus]

Silence from the Editor?

[Editor]

Sorry Jonathan: I missed your earlier comment.

I haven't received a line from CCHQ. The view stated is my own.

My comment speaks for itself. Brown is toxic at the moment and I fear he'd badly damage the Union's case if he was the cheerleader for it. I also sympathise, however, with Michael Forsyth's point that Alex Salmond will use the two years until 2010 to poison minds too. Not a happy situation for those of us who love the Union.

[Ken Stevens]

A referendum on English independence now appears almost inevitable.

Gordon Brown stated his support for a vote on independence as a way of clearing up England’s constitutional future.

Mr Brown said his party would not vote down a bill which gave the English the chance to decide their future.

Mr Brown said that he very much hoped to be leading Labour at the next election. He said: "We think the people of England should be allowed to speak and we will not vote down the opportunity for the English to speak. We think it is right that, after 30 years, England should be given the chance to speak," he told BBC

His comments delighted English nationalists and appalled his Unionist allies. The Tory leader said Mr Brown has given game, set and match to the nationalists. "It will be their plan, their timing – and their question," he said. The concession represented substantial gains for the independence cause and added: "The one thing that has been made clear by Gordon Brown is Labour's concession of the right of Parliament to consult the people on independence for England."

Not a word of the above is true, of course. I've simply extracted bits from today's 'Scotsman' and altered them to an equivalent English context.

Doesn't it seem rather iniquitous that
"allowed to speak", "concession of the right...to consult the people on independence ..", etc applies to the good folk of Scotland but not those of England.

Now, remind me yet again about the sanctity of this Union that we English are supposed to hold so dear to our hearts, at the expense of being treated as second-class denizens of the DisUnited Kingdom..

[David McEwan Hill]

I am somewhat bemused by the comment of Chris D. I merely try to state the facts as they are without rancour of any sort.
The facts are that (a)Michael Forsyth and his policies were a disaster for the Tories in Scotland and he has been left behind by political developments and (b) the "Union" is of little significance to most people in England whose intermittent interest in it is aroused mainly because they are being led to believe that Scotland receives huge handouts because of it.
Whether the last is true or false is not the point. My bum is not tartan. Perhaps I should jpeg it to those who may wonder about it.

[Stephen Gash]

It seems to me that Forsyth's reason for his proposal is because "it would mean that MPs for Scotland didn't become second class in their status."

It doesn't matter that English MPs have been second class since devolution, of course.

However his proposal does inadvertently hit the nail on the head.

The Scottish Parliament made MPs in Scotland powerless in Scotland and thereby virtually redundant. They can only meddle in England's business.

An English Parliament would make Westminster MPs powerless everywhere. This is the only reason MPs oppose an English Parliament. They are looking after themselves. Nothing more.

Since devolution there has been a concerted attempt to carve up England into regions despite the hostility to them.

Devolution has meant the will of the English people being flouted and democracy destroyed.

The Tories aren't doing a damn thing about it.

The sooner England gets out of this blighted Union the better.

[Ken Stevens]

Stephen Gash May 12, 22:11
"The sooner England gets out of this blighted Union the better."

Of course, Scotland etc rejoining it would be a far better outcome.

Alas that doesn't seem likely, so fast-forward to federation or independence and stop messing poor England about!

[dirty european socialist]

Scotland was lied to in the seventies on oil revenues. A recent freedom of information act paper shows scotland was clearly lied to in the seventies, as was was stated in a recent BBC radio four documentrary show called "Document".
It was told it was being subsidised, but it was in fact subsidsing the rest of the UK. A civil servant on the radio four show then suggested that arrogantly that intelligernt Scottish people should have been able to work out themselves with the oil proce that Scotland was not being subsidised.
So take that into account now when English nationalists try to claim we are a burden.
Does anyone with half a brain cell think with the price of oil Scotland is still subsidised. No one will fall for this trick again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Scotland is not being subsidised. Grow up.
I support the union but people like Redwood who seem the be anti Jock, make me wary. He calls for fair budget for Scotland well that would mean more cash.

[Opinicus]

@dirty European socialist
We really need some transparency about the figures here. Petroleum Revenue Tax is worth about £1b in 2005 which is the last year I have records for. The extra public expenditure is about £9b a year (£1500 per capita more than England or Wales). Even allowing for PRT to rise with the oil price there is clearly a continuing subsidy. This excludes Scotland getting a share of corporation tax on the City of London (15-20% of the UK's entire GDP plus stamp duty), which it would cease to get after independence.

Almost certainly, the Scots did subsidise England Wales and NI during the eighties, so what. That 10-15 yr period does not pay back three hundred years of subsidy the other way. Extraordinary how you are so touchy about 15 yrs yet so determined not to mind the 286.

It is seldom difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance. Besides, I am on your side, I want Scottish independence too and am prepared to chance the fact that I have got my maths wrong.

[Dirty European Socialist]

Jonathan I am sorry but you talk Utter bolderdash, the oil revenue is well over 10 billion. Where are your figures from.
Norway made £21 Billion a year in 2005 from oil tax revenue. They have no reason to lie.

The UK is not far behind Norway or atleast it should not be unless something has gone badly wrong with how oil was privatised. And oil revenue has gone up since 2005. Norway I would predict should be upto 30 billion. 1 billion pound is total rubbish. I would predict the oil revenue is well well over 10 billion for the UK in tax income. I would not be surpried if was appraching 20 billion for the UK by now. You have to take with a massive pinch of salt what the UK government says. As there is a political agenda. I support the union I am Scottish but I want the union to be defened on truth not on some conn trick.
The figures on how much is spent in in Scotland should be taken with a pinch of salt too does that include nuclear submarine bases, army training, royal security costs. :

[ChrisD]

"Almost certainly, the Scots did subsidise England Wales and NI during the eighties, so what. That 10-15 yr period does not pay back three hundred years of subsidy the other way. Extraordinary how you are so touchy about 15 yrs yet so determined not to mind the 286."

Please go away and read a few history books before spouting such rubbish. I cannot take anyone who suggests that Scotland sat idle back and enjoyed being subsidised by the rest of the UK over the last 300 hundred years.
As a family history anorak, I spend a lot of time getting to know the social history of the area's where my ancestors lived and worked and your assertion is preposterous in the extreme.

And while you are at it, check out the very handy figures for Whiskey exports which have certainly helped the Treasury in recent times. Only recently Gordon Brown to fill one of his black holes by doubling the tax on Oil revenue as well.

[Dirty European Socialist]

Jonathan I am sorry but you talk Utter bolderdash, the oil revenue is well over 10 billion. Where are your figures from.
Norway made £21 Billion a year in 2005 from oil tax revenue. They have no reason to lie.

The UK is not far behind Norway or atleast it should not be unless something has gone badly wrong with how oil was privatised. And oil revenue has gone up since 2005. Norway I would predict should be upto 30 billion, maybe more oil has more than doubled since then. There is no way the UK makes just 1 billion pound is total rubbish. The normal quoted figure is about 10 billion. I would predict that figure is a deliberate under estimate, and that oil revenue is well well over 10 billion for the UK in tax income. I would not be surpried if was appraching 20 billion for the UK by now. You have to take with a massive pinch of salt what the UK government says. As there is a political agenda. I support the union I am Scottish but I want the union to be defened on truth not on some conn trick. Remember I support the union.
The figures on how much is spent in Scotland should be taken with a pinch of salt too does that include nuclear submarine bases, army training, royal security costs, cost of running scottish HQs in London, which finances England:
Plus you refer to the previous 287 years, but that is hardly fair, government expenditure was tiny in those days. There was no NHS, School service, welfare state for most of that era. The rest of the UK was subsidsing the the Scottish in what exactly.

I support the union but surely anyone with half a brain cell can work out the logic does not add up that English subdise the north.
How can you claim Scotland was subsidising the rest of the UK in the 80's but not now when the oil price is higher. It does not make coherent sense, it just does not add up.
The civil servant on the radio four show made an excuse for the seventies, lie that any intelligent guy could work out the facts for themselves using their common sense, so why don't you.

[ChrisD]

On the issue of a referendum in Scotland, I see hidden dangers for all the main political parties.
Back after the SNP election victory last year, a combined push for an immediate referendum would have worked in the favour of all the Unionist parties. It would certainly have scuppered Alex Salmond carefully laid strategy, and I have no doubts that it would have been defeated putting back the SNP case for several years.

Unfortunately too many of the old guard in the Scottish Conservative party would have rebelled, the Libdems would have looked completely stupid after boxing themselves into a corner over the issue of a referendum being a stumbling block to coalition talks with the SNP. As for the Labour party, they were in shocked political paralysis for months and then continued to naval gaze their way through a leadership coronation which did not allow for a real root and branch debate on their political direction.

Now we have Wendy suddenly becoming a convert to the argument of shooting the SNP fox a year too late. She has undermined herself, her party, the PM and the coalition of the Unionist parties. Incredible!
Now there is a real core of unionist sentiment among in particular older voters who might be inclined to vote Conservative, and yet never underestimate the ability of some in the party to torpedo this with a self inflicted wound. Yes, I mean those in the party and the blogsphere who have continued to damage the relationship not just with their own party members North of the Border, but also with voters that might come back to the fold if we are seen as the strongest party most likely to protect the Union.
The Conservatives should be pushing for an elegant and fair solution to the political dilemma of the WLQ, which by the way is regarded as unfair in its present form by many in Scotland. This is a fact often forgotten by those that seek to place the blame on the whole Scots nation as if we had plotted to do down the rest of the UK.

But, this does not necessarily mean that Salmond has a clear run to push for independence at a time of his choosing. His biggest fear will be that the Unionist cause will gather around one party rather than splitting three ways if it becomes a major issue at election time. A real possibility that is not being raised IMHO, but as I said earlier, never doubt the ability of a loud and unpleasant minority blindly damaging their own party because of personal prejudice.
The Libdems are seeing their electoral successes of recent years being eroded by both the SNP and the Conservatives, which way do they jump?

[Dave J]

What's ultimately needed at this point, having gone so far, for the sake of fairness and legitimacy all round, is a constitutional convention for the whole of the UK. Continuing to doing things piecemeal (and half-assed) is simply only going to continue to aggravate one group or another. The present assymetric devolution is fundamentally unfair, unstable, and delegitimizing. The pre-1998 UK is no more and will never be again. The choice is between a balanced federal UK, each of the component home nations of which has the same degree of self-government, or the end of the UK. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing. I'm just saying that that's the reality, and you have to deal with it.

[Ken Stevens]

Dirty European Socialist | May 13, 00:19

I don't enter the fray on who subsidises whom. The Barnett Formula is certainly a presentational disaster. On the other hand, for all I know (which isn't much!), it might be that the Scottish counties' share of UK public expenditure was no more nor less than would have been due under the ordinary processes of apportionment according to criteria as for English counties.

However, I am bridling a little at your implication that comparisons of relative public spend should not include nuclear submarine bases.

Why do you say that?

[DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST]

Ken Stevens : Because if the nuclear submarine bases are all located in one part of the country AKA Scotland it is extremely unfair to claim that as part of government spending comparable to education and health. Surely you can see that.
Take for example:
Say if the government spent £10 million on town A and £10 million on town B.
Both with the same population. But that town B most of the spending was on a nuclear submarine base and army training and in town A it was on education and health. Surely you can see that is unfair on town B. It should not be counted as government spending. It serves no benefit for the people who live in town B.
How you feel if you were forced to pay higher council tax for a nuclear submarine base while your next door town did not despite them benefiting equally from it. And if the government is counting such bases as Scottish government expenditure that is an utter con trick. By the way where would the nuclear subarime base be put if England had to have it instead. Because I cannot see Scotland having nuclear weapons.

Having a nuclear submarine base in Scotland is nothing to do with public service spending. Surely you can see that. And Faslane naval base is in Scotland. Do they count that as government spending in Scotland. Cause if they do that is utter rubbish. I would very surprised if they do play that trick.
There is new a myth being made that the UK makes 1 billion from oil tax, rubbish it is is well over 10 billion as was known in 2005 .
The UK makes well well over 10 billion oil tax revenues. Now some propagandists claim it is 1 billion. Norway made 21 billion in oil tax revnues in 2005. The UK made 10 billion in 2005. Since when did it fall to 1 billion. I have seen someo newspaper reprining this myth. It is lie.
Here is a 2005 stroy saying the UK makes 10 billion from oil tax revnue, so whe did it become 1 billion.
http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/uk-offshore-operators-association-dont-overlook-significance-uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry-$15047716.htm

The English should be grateful for scotland. Redwood should admitt clearly Scotland subsidies the UK, instead of his anti Scottish diatribe And 98% of UK oil is in Scotland. Remember England makes a loss at present it does not make a profit as the UK is in deficit almost entirely due to England.

I support the union but people like Redwood (who once ran a celtic nation, like colinal governor ) and other little Englanders
should not lie about the nation that really does subsidise the UK. :

[Home Rule for England]

Give us English a referendum. The Union would be rejected. It does nothing for us, just wastes a lot of English taxpayers money.
End the Union with Scotland and disband the United Kingdom.
Let Scotland Wales and N.Ireland go their own ways.
Independence for England

[StevenAdams]

I semi-agree with Dirty European Socialist above... of course in that simple analogy the town with the Sub-base is worse off.... however there are other benefits you've ignored.

What about local employment, for example. Investment in a base of that scale would undoubtedly have a huge effect on the local employment market, be that in aspirations of local children looking to train appropriately or the employment of non-specialist maintenance services, for example.

There would also be other ancillary and positive effects such as the 'spend' of the nuclear base. They will live and spend locally, providing local business income. Government will also have incentive to invest in local transport infrastructure, primarily to assist the base but to the benefit of the local residents as well.

Employees, scientists (etc) and soldiers living on the base may well have children that need local schools etc etc etc... I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. In essence, Town B has a huge economic advantage over Town A, paid for by government and requiring infrastructure investment that may not otherwise be attracted to the town.

And so, to simply say "yes, but £2 billion (or whatever) of Scottish spend is military and therefore not valid" is just as simplistic as wholly including it.

[Ken Stevens]

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST | May 13, 09:36

Thank you for the courtesy of detailed response.

My reactions:

".. [if in]town B most of the spending was on a nuclear submarine base and army training and in town A it was on education and health..."

That is predicated on the two types of spend being mutually exclusive, i.e. if you have a large government facility in the vicinity, you are deprived of spending on education & health.

"How would you feel if you were forced to pay higher council tax for a nuclear submarine base while your next door town did not despite them benefiting equally from it."

I was unaware that council tax levels in a locality were adversely affected by UK defence expenditure.

"By the way where would the nuclear submarine base be put if England had to have it instead. Because I cannot see Scotland having nuclear weapons."

Ah, now this the angle I was suspecting when I asked you for clarification!

Firstly, defence aspects are the preserve of the UK Parliament. If one component of the present so-called UK succeeds in embargoing a particular sort of weaponry (and I respect the sentiment, even though I disagree with it) then that would be a further step towards break-up.

"By the way where would the nuclear submarine base be put if England had to have it instead"

I am sure that there are naval towns in England that would be pleased to receive the economic boost that that an additional military facility would present. As I understand it, the siting of nuclear subs in Scotland is to do with topography (- deep coastal waters) rather than politics and English imperialist NIMBYism. After all, the warheads are produced just a few miles away from Boris's soon-to-be-erstwhile constituency (in which I reside) and scarcely much further from Westminster.

As to your financial observations, I do not engage in the customary bouts of who-subsidises-whom, firstly because my primary concern is the overall constitutional deficiencies of the getting-ever-less-United Kingdom and secondly because I have no idea as to where the truth lies in this respect. Nor am I concerned whether at different times, different areas of the Kingdom find themselves sharing their good fortune with less advantaged areas. Caring & sharing is part of being one society. The trouble is that we aren't any more.

Therefore we go back to being in Union (actually my preference) or acknowledge the reality that things have gone too far for this.... though I do wonder whether anyone would be brave enough to include in a referendum the option of scrapping devolved parliament/assemblies. A truly Unionist party should have the courage of its convictions!

[Iain]

"Please go away and read a few history books before spouting such rubbish."

I have, at the point of 1707 Union, Scotland was a bankrupt back water, few houses in Edinburgh had glazed windows, agricultural methods were medieval, the best land was left water logged, the peasants lived in turffed hovels, industry was almost non existent, the Scottish parliaments remit barely went beyond Edinburgh, and the law was secondary to the clan.

But as to more recent financial matters, the last time I looked the figures according to the Scottish Government for 2003/4 were....

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/12/14094600

Expenditure was £45.3 bn
Receipts £34 bn
Attributable North Sea oil revenue £7bn

Result England subsidising Scotland.

http://business.scotsman.com/scottishbusinessbriefing/Scottish-Business-Briefing--15.2686601.jp

The Scotsman newspaper reported that England was subsidising Scotland to the tunes of £2,200 per head.

And the Times reported on Brown's Soviet North where Northern Ireland was dependent on public spending for 71.3% of its GDP. Wales 66.2%. North East England at 62.4% and Scotland 57.7%.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article669112.ece

[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.

[Opinicus]

@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 ;-)