Andrew Constantine

I do not see how the above makes the case for the Union, or is at all relevant.

I am not aware of any pro-Independence campaigner who has seriously suggested that Scots etc could not come and live in an Independent England.

Assuming that an Independent England is both richer (an end to subsidies to say both the EU and NI) and is in various expected ways a better place to live - I have assumed that more Scots etc would wish to move here. I have no problem with that.

Verdict: the case for the Union on this criteria - Not proved!

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

http://freeengland.blogspot.com

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

Unionist

You have selected only one out of my several points, Andrew, which hardly constitutes a decisive rebuttal.

As regards the argument you did pick up, the significance of that particular point is that over a long period of time the Scots and English have effectively intermingled a lot and moved freely across Britain, thus lots of English people have a Scots heritage and the Union is a demographic fact as well as a political fact.

I did not, of course, suggest that any campaigner for English independence advocated prohibiting Scots from living in an independent England. That is merely a straw man argument that you have put up in order to knock it down.

(I do note on your website, however, that you advocate a suspension of immigration. Would this apply equally to Scottish, Welsh and Irish people as to others?)

cassie

In common with others Unionist, you persist in using the blood-line approach! However, it is very indeterminate for a number of reasons. One is that the largest amount of 'intermingling' has been in England, not Scotland nor Wales! Immigration in England whether from Scotland or Wales or elsewhere has been vastly greater in the last fifty years. Indeed, the latest ONS projections forecast that over 90% of immigration in the coming decades will be to England. Consequently, the populations of Scotland and Wales as proportions of the UK's total will decrease, whilst that of England's will increase!

The fact of the minor nations remaining self contained and relatively pure is evidenced by their Parliamentary representation. As I've pointed out before, no English people represent any of the Parliamentary Constituencies in Scotland, whilst over thirty Scots occupy seats in England!

Then there is the matter of objective evidence. Those who regard themselves as ethnic English were prevented from recording that in the 2001 Census. Consequently, it is more difficult to accurately gauge the extent of 'intermingling' in each of the home nations.

There can be no proper, long lasting Union whilst some of the parties become increasingly detached and contrive to treat the major partner adversely.

Finally, I would opine that transcending this 'ancestral' approach is the important matter of attitude. Believe it or not, there are foreign born individuals who come to England because they love it, its ways and customs, and want to adopt them. For the UK to survive these people need to be welcomed and included, all other factors being satisfied.


------------------------------

Richard the Lionheart

The question I pose is, what benefits to England does the union bring? What is its value and how is that value measured? If Scotland left the union, am I like likey to have to pay more tax to plug the gap left by not having the Scottish taxpayer subsidising England, or would I get a tax cut by not having to subsidise Scotland Wales and NI any longer?

England would have a small oil and gas industry, Royal Navy ships built in England which would lead to the development of hi-tec industries, the same would apply to the nuclear sub force, the reduction of politicians in Westminster, DVLA with its 5,000 jobs would move to England, as would the Royal Mint, we would be out of the EU, no more Barnett and an end to the WLQ. The revivial of England as a nation state, not just in political terms, but in terms of Englishness. These are just a few things that England would gain as an independent state.

__________________
The Free England Party - England's Premier Nationalist Party
www.freeengland.com .....Serious about England

Unionist

It is not a bloodline approach at all. I couldn't care less where anyone comes from and, unlike what seems to be the majority of posters here, I am not opposed to immigration and do not argue for tighter controls (other than where national security issues are present). Nor do I consider myself a British nationalist, as I said in my original post.

However, if you are going to make a case for English independence based upon some distinctive English identity, I am entitled to point out that it is very tenuous in demographic and historical terms.

So my point is the opposite to what you seem to be suggesting. 'Bloodlines' are irrelevant and I was pointing out one reason why they are irrelevant in this case, namely that the idea of any 'purity' in demographic terms is ridiculous.

Richard the Lionheart

Let's keep it as issues of politics and economics.

__________________
The Free England Party - England's Premier Nationalist Party
www.freeengland.com .....Serious about England

Unionist

Scotland's per capita GDP is approximately 96% of that of the UK, but that is on the basis of allocating North sea oil and gas to the UK as a whole. Calculating the figures to allocate the majority of oil and gas to Scotland suggests that Scotland would have a higher per capita GDP than England. The case for a higher per capita GDP in an independent England would seem to be doubtful, all other factors being equal.

Certainly the Barnett formula should be looked at but that does not require English independence. In any case, I strongly believe that overall well-being is not determined by the level of public expenditure. If anything, high levels of public expenditure hamper initiative and impede public sector reform.

Then there is the question of how much Scotland contributes to the Exchequer. Scotland contributes a higher proportion of revenues in several key fields, notably VAT on hydrocarbon oils, alcohol (especially whisky), business rates, Crown Estate revenues, petroleum revenue tax and so on. I could do an up-to-date analysis of each of these if I had the time but I believe they are all areas where Scotland is responsible for higher than average revenues.

Would we save any tax by dissolving the Union? If anything it would be a marginal saving, though as I have stated we could save that anyway by reviewing the Barnett formula. We could get much bigger savings by cutting out waste, getting rid of the RDAs, engaging in serious welfare reform or making the health service operate on private sector terms without the excessive layers of management.

(There would be higher savings from leaving the EU, of course, though not nearly as high as some people like to think.)

The bottom line is that if you want to campaign for English independence there will be no 'pot of gold' to offer. It would be better to concentrate on the political arguments in my view.

cassie

With all due respect, I think you should read the final paragraph of my previous post. I believe that the word 'transcend' is of particular importance here!

No, I would not attempt to make a case for English independence (or, indeed, solely a separate English Parliament) based upon some distinctive English identity. However, it was (is?) possible to identify English customs and practices - an English way of going on, if you like - which has been under assault for the last forty or so years.

Had Section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976 not included 'ethnicity' and 'nationality' in its definition of 'racial discrimination', our society would not have had to suffer the imposition of foreign religions, customs and practices to the damaging extent it has! For immigrant women or women of immigrant stock to be walking around our streets masked is not only alien, but a form of sexual discrimination based on the attitudes of the societies from which it has been transplanted! Moreover, not only is it an implicit slight to all males, it is a means of concealing dangers to us.

The effects of all these foreign pressures on us are plain to see, for those who wish to see. Not only is there hesitancy about our own established celebrations - "mustn't offend ethnic minorities y'know" with its implicit "sod the rest of you!" - but the legislation which bears down on us removing our rights under the guise of security because we have accord equality to foreigners regardless of whether we suspect them of malign intent. Habeas corpus has progressively increased to twenty eight days with the prospect of it being increased to forty two days and in due course to ninety days! It does not seem coincidental that such measures are presided over (as was the original Race Relations legislation) by an 'ethnic minority' - then it was a Welshman, now it is Scots!

It seems increasingly inescapable - much as I would wish to escape it - that the UK is more united in theory than in practice and, to the extent that it is united, is attributable to sacrifices imposed on the people of England. What kind of Union is it in which a minority of 8% has its own banking system and bank notes, legal system, education system and has had for well over half a century (more in the case of banking and legal!). Since 1997, one can add transport and health to the list.

As someone sympathetic if not supportive of the UK and being British, I find that I am being increasingly driven into the opposition camp, albeit much against my wishes and long established sentiments. I find it difficult to believe that millions of my English compatriots will not be experiencing similar thoughts and feelings.


-------------------------------

cassie

It's amazing what words can convey, even when unrelated to any objective facts! The Budget for 2007-08 anticipated Total Receipts of £553 billion under the following main headings:

Income Tax £157billion [28.4%]
National Insurance £95billion [17.2%]
Other £84billion [15.2%]
VAT £80billion [14.5%]
Corporation Tax £50billion [9.1%]
Excise duties £41billion [7.4%]
Council tax £23billion [4.2%]
Business rates £22billion [4.0%]

I'd be interested to see official figures used to demonstrate that less than £460billion emanates from England AND that more than £46 billion emanates from Scotland!

Apropos your bottom line, I don't suppose that the presence or otherwise of a pot of gold is the fundamental driving factor here. In my opinion, it more likely to be perceptions of how one and one's nationality is regarded and, most importantly, treated by other UK members. Currently, there is much evidence to conclude that we are regarded with condescending contempt!


---------------------------

Unionist

cassie, I said there would be in my view a saving for England, but a marginal one and less than could be saved by other means that I listed. I am sure that any detailed analysis would confirm that.

I do not, of course, dispute the figures that you have presented above, but nor do those figures in any way contradict what I have suggested. Scotland has only a small percentage of UK population, thus significant revenues in a few sectors can have a big impact on how we interpret the figures. I have already given an example in the case of North Sea oil and gas and its impact on per capita GDP.

But I think we at least both agree that it is not about money in the end.