Britannist

Britannist

Brief extract from The Scotsman article on the link in the first posting to this thread "Former Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth has attacked Conservative MSPs for backing the SNP (anti-UK Scottish so-called 'National' Party) in last week's budget, warning Britain now faced the real prospect of "disintegration".
The Conservative peer and opponent of devolution said it was "extraordinary" Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie had decided to back First Minister Alex Salmond's spending plans."

Lord Forsyth, an ally of Lady Thatcher, warned that populist measures in Scotland such as free prescriptions could lead to resentment in England and declining support in England for the Union of the UK. He also called for the Barnett Formula (in which each Scot gets about a third more each of UK public money than does each English person) should be reformed.

rjt

Well done for speaking out Lord Forsyth, he had a rough time during the Thatcher administration when Scots Party chairman at the height of her unpopularity, the Europhile Scots Secretary Rifkind constantly put pressure on Lady T to sack him.

Lord Forsyth consitantley rejected calls for devoulution then and he speaks with authority now as he knew what was likely to happen.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

cassie

Forsyth was a member of the Tory Government which imposed upon local councillors the requirement to agree a balanced budget on pain of being surcharged jointly and severally.

The same criterion applied at regional level would also require MSPs to approve a budget. On this occasion it fell to Conservatives to bite the bullet.

It ill behoves Forsyth, who was rejected by his Scottish constituents in 1997 and is merely an appointee to the Lords, to adopt a different standard now. Whether or not he opposed devolution is not relevant to this particular matter.


______________________

Andrew Constantine

The above story was interesting and can be summed up by this quote:

Forsyth said: "We are seeing the real prospect of the disintegration of the UK. Even the Conservative MSPs voted for the nationalist budget... which is extraordinary."

I ask this question of ardent Unionists (such as the admired Britannist): at what stage of the disintergration of the UK will you personally throw in the towel and stop seeking the revival of the Union, and instead look to the revival of the English nation state?

It is a serious issue for you Unionists. At some stage, my view that the Union is on the way out is very likely to become the reality that you can no longer ignore. So what will be your response then?

From my perspective, I think the devolution process will see Scotland leave the Union within a few years, and there is nothing we living in England can in practice do to stop that happening.

So I would argue that both UKIP members and other anti-EU Unionists who are English would need to accept the new reality, and turn your considerable intellectual firepower in the direction of looking after the English nation. Together we could then work to make Engalnd the model parliamentary democracy and foe of the EU that we should both wish it to be.

Worth considering?

Regards, Andrew

__________________
Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith.

Free England Party - Independence for England
http://www.freeengland.com

Signatory to The English Claim of Right
http://englishclaimofright.com

cassie

The trouble with most separatists is that, like Dubya Bush, they think there are only two positions in respect of 'the Union' - either for or against!

As for 'Scotland leaving the Union', apparently it is too much to expect separatists to campaign for voters in England to participate in any referenda about the future of the UK? It seems those 'patriots' are content to allow the 3.9 million voters in Scotland to have their say, whilst the 38 million voters in England are excluded once again.

A campaign for voters in England to participate in all such referenda runs the risk of uniting all English nationalists (both separatist and Unionist) in a common cause, and that would never do - would it?



____________________________

rjt

If the Scots vote to leave the union I would accept that providing a clear majority do so. But I would aks you to consider the fact there is no mandate, as seen in the recent elections for independance.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

blank_frackis

The problem with this is that reforming the Barnett formula doesn't necessarily solve anything. The disparity between public spending in the English regions is, if anything, even greater than that between England and Scotland. Public spending per head is about £2,000 more in London and the North-East than it is in the East Midlands (for instance) and that has nothing to do with the Barnett formula. The difference between England and Scotland is £1,500 per head.

Britannist

Lord Barnett, who devised the Barnett Formula over three decades ago, has called for it to be got rid of. He allegedly has called it an embarrassment.

As you state above, overall each Scottish person in Scotland gets spent on them at least £1500 more per head of population (of UK public money per year) than does each English person in England.

It is not acceptable that a poor person in England should - because s/he is in England - automatically have £1500 less of UK public money spent on him/her than a poor person in Scotland.

blank_frackis

My point was that reforming the Barnett formula doesn't necessarily solve anything. There is an even bigger disparity between London - where I note, you list yourself as living - and the East Midlands, than there is between England and Scotland. Public spending in London is around £2,000 more per head than spending in the East Midlands according to figures published last year. The North-East also receives a disproportionately large amount of public spending in comparison to other regions.

The Barnett formula only relates to the distribution of spending between the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, the fact that there's an even bigger disparity between regions in England itself would suggest that it's only part of the problem.