The BBC reported yesterday that the Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru (the party of Wales) have threatened legal action over their exclusion from the TV debates agreed between the leaders of the unionist parties, that is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. We understand that instead they will be offered their own debates within Scotland and Wales respectively. If so, should not one or more of the main debates be reserved for England? But unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there is no-one elected by the people of England who has the authority to speak for them because there is no English national Assembly or Parliament
The Westminster Parliament - in which MPs from all the British countries and the Province of Northern Ireland sit- is not only responsible for UK reserved matters but also for English domestic matters. If the UK debates are to be on reserved matters rather than English domestic matters, there is nothing left to be debated separately in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since their devolved assemblies/Parliament deal with their domestic matters.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, is reported to have said: "I have always believed in live television debates. I think they can help enliven our democracy, I think they will help answer people's questions, I think they will crystallise the debate about the change this country needs." Which country, Mr Cameron? Britain is a state consisting of three countries. Is he going to debate UK matters only or English matters as well?
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, told the Daily Mirror: "I relish the opportunity provided by these debates to discuss the big choices the country faces. Choices like whether we lock in the recovery or whether we choke it off; whether we protect the NHS, schools and police or whether we put them at risk to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few." Again, we might ask: which country please? From Mr. Brown’s statement, we must assume that he intends to debate English domestic matters, such as the English health service, English schools and police since the Westminster parliament has control over those matters only in England.
It will be important to discover from the debates whether the LibLabCon 'unionist' parties will be presenting different policies on domestic matters for their Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament members to pursue in the devolved territories. We need to know whether those policies would be more advantageous than those proposed for England.
The Campaign for an English Parliament will be monitoring what these so-called unionist parties propose and will note any comparative disadvantage proposed for the people of England.
Contact:
Scilla Cullen CEP Chairman Tel: 01438
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Fight against British Racism – Fight against racism directed against England and the English
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Monday, 14 December 2009
ARE THE BRITISH BRINGING BACK SLAVERY - COMPULSORY SERVICE FOR ENGLISH YOUTH
In April the British Prime Minister (MP for Scotland’s Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency) announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7995652.stm) plans to force all English children, (but not those of his own constituents because he only has control over England in this matter), to carry out at least 50 hours of community service before the age of 19. He was quoted word for word without correction: “It is my ambition to create a Britain ( England ) in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up in Britain ( England ).
He also said the community work would be linked to a “clear system of accreditation” meaning that children who refuse to take part in the slave labour would fail or marked down in their Citizenship exams.
Now this government’s higher education minister for England , David Lammy, has said that a national (only applies to England ) civic service should be in the next Labour manifesto. In addition (English) university students would be required to carry out 100 hours of community service in recognition of the subsidy the state pays towards their education - estimated at £8,000. The £450m cost of the scheme would be funded by levying interest on student loans English students already leave university with twice the debt of British students from Wales and Scotland because they are, uniquely, obliged to pay top-up fees and are subsidised less by the British government than other British students who are extensively subsidised by their own national governments.
One surmises that these proposals will not be in the manifesto they publish for Scotland but only that published for ‘ Britain ’, which means England . Let us hope that this never comes to fruition since Labour is unlikely to win a general election. Nevertheless we are told that The Conservatives have proposed a six-week national service scheme for youngsters in the summer after their GCSEs. If the Conservatives form the next British government they will also only have power over English youth in this matter.
However, as unlikely as it is that his proposals will ever come to anything, this Prime Minister will ask, via his party’s manifesto, the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in Scotland to elect him, so that he will be able to compel English children to carry out unpaid “voluntary” work by making it a compulsory element of the English school curriculum.
Mr Lammy has backed this call for a national army of volunteers (sic) to help the UK economy out of recession. Because of devolution this measure will only apply to England but it is clearly stated that it intended to help the whole of the UK including Scotland and Wales . Yet another example of how England ’s people are expected to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the so-called Union . Indeed, is this one of the benefits for England that the Unionist LibLabCon parties are always telling us we enjoy?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqShXo7H-XE
He also said the community work would be linked to a “clear system of accreditation” meaning that children who refuse to take part in the slave labour would fail or marked down in their Citizenship exams.
Now this government’s higher education minister for England , David Lammy, has said that a national (only applies to England ) civic service should be in the next Labour manifesto. In addition (English) university students would be required to carry out 100 hours of community service in recognition of the subsidy the state pays towards their education - estimated at £8,000. The £450m cost of the scheme would be funded by levying interest on student loans English students already leave university with twice the debt of British students from Wales and Scotland because they are, uniquely, obliged to pay top-up fees and are subsidised less by the British government than other British students who are extensively subsidised by their own national governments.
One surmises that these proposals will not be in the manifesto they publish for Scotland but only that published for ‘ Britain ’, which means England . Let us hope that this never comes to fruition since Labour is unlikely to win a general election. Nevertheless we are told that The Conservatives have proposed a six-week national service scheme for youngsters in the summer after their GCSEs. If the Conservatives form the next British government they will also only have power over English youth in this matter.
However, as unlikely as it is that his proposals will ever come to anything, this Prime Minister will ask, via his party’s manifesto, the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in Scotland to elect him, so that he will be able to compel English children to carry out unpaid “voluntary” work by making it a compulsory element of the English school curriculum.
Mr Lammy has backed this call for a national army of volunteers (sic) to help the UK economy out of recession. Because of devolution this measure will only apply to England but it is clearly stated that it intended to help the whole of the UK including Scotland and Wales . Yet another example of how England ’s people are expected to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the so-called Union . Indeed, is this one of the benefits for England that the Unionist LibLabCon parties are always telling us we enjoy?
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqShXo7H-XE
Friday, 11 December 2009
NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
Yesterday (10 December), Jack Straw vetoed releasing the minutes of a 1997 Cabinet Ministerial Committee Meeting on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions. He stated that releasing the information would be ‘against the public interest’, citing the doctrine of collective responsibility, although the disclosure had previously been approved by the Information Commissioner on June 23rd 2009.
According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed – out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.
What is Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can’t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public has a right to know.
This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman Campaign for an English Parliament
According to the Ministry of Justice, this is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 that a request granted by an Information Tribunal has been vetoed – out of 160,000 requests. The previous occasion the veto was imposed was in February 2009 in respect of the disclosure of the minutes of two cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq war.
What is Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice so concerned with concealing? What was said in a meeting about devolution that was so dangerous that it can’t be made public? What deals were done to break up England and preserve the dominance of Scottish politicians? The English public has a right to know.
This meeting, twelve years ago, led to an asymmetric devolution settlement which is to the great disadvantage of England. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that action must be taken to deliver a fair and democratic constitutional settlement for England. Lift the veto, Jack, and let us in on the decisions you made.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman Campaign for an English Parliament
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
CEP: Would a Tory Government bring in a needs-based formula to replace Barnett?
Professor David Bell of Stirling University has analysed the impact on Scotland of the Welsh Assembly's Holtham Commission report into a needs-based funding formula to replace the out-dated Barnett Formula.
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Writing in The Scotsman Prof Bell warns that a move to a needs-based formula could lose Scotland £4.5 billion a year of Treasury funding.
"If its calculations were put into practice, it would have dramatic effects on the Scottish budget," Prof Bell says. "The size of the block grant from Westminster to Holyrood would shrink substantially. Instead of the Scottish grant being 20 per cent higher per head than in England , the margin would shrink to 5 per cent.
"At current spending levels, this would mean a cut of around £4.5bn in Scotland 's annual grant from Westminster ."
During the House of Lord's Select Committee on Barnett, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (1995 to 1997), Lord Forsyth, revealed that in order to guard Scotland 's interests he was counselled against a needs-based formula.
The advice I was given when I was Secretary of State is do everything you can to avoid a needs-based assessment being implemented by the Treasury because the Treasury believe that it will enable them to reduce Scotland's budget by between £2.5 and £4 billion.
Given the possible implications for Scotland , what is the likelihood of a future Conservative Government implementing a needs-based replacement of the Barnett Formula? Would the Tories replace Barnett with a system that is fair to ALL the British nations or would they continue to bribe Scotland to remain in the Union ? The CEP believes that the people of England , whose taxes subsidise the UK , have a right to know.
David WILDGOOSE
Vice-Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament
0114 274 6191 cep@skein.co.uk
8 December 2009
We must not forget that it is the British that are denying England its political recognition, the British MPs we have sent to parliament to represent England, it is these who are to blame. Until we have our own English MPs not British MPs representing England nothing is going to change.
Song for St. George's Day by Resistance 77
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/entertainment/Undefined-Headline/article-869549-detail/article.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
