Trouble brewing over Iceland money Holyrood and Westminster battle looming over financial relief available to bail out councils who have lost money By Tom Gordon Scottish Political Editor Comment | Read Comments (10) RELATIONS BETWEEN the Scottish and UK governments are set to hit a new low this week, as the two sides fight over how to help Scottish councils with millions frozen in failed Icelandic banks.
At a crunch meeting on Wednesday, Westminster will insist any loss will ultimately fall to the Scottish government to sort out, as local government is devolved. However John Swinney, the finance secretary, will insist that financial regulation of banking is reserved to Westminster, and any bail-out of councils must see Scottish and English authorities treated equally.
On Tuesday, Alex Salmond will convene a special economic cabinet, which will renew efforts to extract disputed monies from Westminster in order to help Scotland through the credit crunch. Ministers have identified £963m of public spending which could be brought forward and used to cushion the impact of the financial crisis on the Scottish economy.
advertisement However most is the subject of long-running disputes with the Treasury over council tax benefit, prison spending, and regeneration funds arising from the 2012 Olympics.
The fossil fuel levy surplus, in excess of £120m, the Scottish government's £42m underspend currently held at Westminster, and the council tax benefit mechanism, which has cost Scotland an estimated £100m a year since 2004/05, are among the measures identified.
In addition, the Barnett formula impact of London Olympics regeneration spending, £120m of prisons spending from the Carter review and £40m in police and firefighter pension commutation costs all combine to make a total of £963m.
Swinney wrote to Alistair Darling to make his case on Thursday, as it emerged eight Scottish councils had more than £45 million at risk in Icelandic institutions.
The chancellor, in the United States this weekend for a meeting of the G7 on how to address the panic in the stock markets worldwide, has yet to reply.
However Jim Murphy, the new Scottish Secretary, will make plain on Wednesday that the buck stops with the devolved government. Murphy will meet Swinney and Pat Watters, president of the council umbrella body Cosla, at the Scotland Office in Edinburgh.
A Scotland Office spokesman said that the UK government would make every effort on behalf of UK depositors to recover funds from Iceland, and as part of that process Scottish and English councils would be treated equally.
"The starting point is to make sure that the money comes back, and there's no default," the spokesman said. "But in the worst case option, everything that could be done would be done by the devolved adminstration, by the Scottish government.
"The tripartite meeting will go through all the worries that Cosla have, and Jim will say, well, that's devolved, and Swinney and Cosla can take it away.
"The meeting should establish what the Treasury is doing, what the UK government is doing, and what is the responsibility of the Scottish government.
"It's not a question of passing the buck - this has been devolved since 1999."
He said that in the event of councils failing to recover all their money, the Scottish government could help them with their cash flow by re-ordering their budgets and granting permission to use capital reserves for day-to-day spending.
But a senior government source said: "There is not a scintilla of doubt that it is a reserved issue. It's up to the Treasury to decide what to do in these exceptional circumstances. The idea of them extending help to English councils but not to Scotland is unsustainable. If they did that, I would advise them the prime minister and chancellor not to stand at the next election."
The part of Scotland facing the biggest potential loss as a result of the Icelandic collapse is Ayrshire, where all three councils have money frozen in accounts.
North Ayrshire's exposure is £15m, South Ayrshire's £5m, and East Ayrshire's between £3m and £5m. Scottish Borders has £10m invested, South Lanarkshire £7.5m, Moray £2m.
East Renfrewshire and Perth & Kinross each stand to lose £1m if their money cannot be recovered. Around 100 English and Welsh authorities have £750m at risk as a result of the failure of Icelandic banks, including Landsbanki, Heritable Bank and Glitnir
Free Scotland would still have to beg for English cash
Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor These extraordinary financial times have rendered much else in the world mundane and irrelevant. Not least, the concept of Scottish independence. So much so that, suddenly, even the Nationalists are trying to avoid the subject.
Alex Salmond sounded at best half-hearted on radio yesterday when pressed on how an independent Scotland might fare in these cataclysmic economic times.
He was forced to fall back on vague references to independence having sufficient economic levers to deal with such events. Presumably, he meant levers such as having a central bank available to pump sufficient capital into the Scottish banking system to try to ensure continued liquidity.
That would be fine, except that SNP policy is not to have a Scottish central bank, come independence. The Bank of England would continue to be our central bank. And a “Free Scotland” would, therefore, have to go cap in hand to what would then be a foreign country in the hope of getting us out of a hole.
But if Mr Salmond and the SNP are avoiding for the moment the economic nitty gritty of separation from the United Kingdom, that doesn't mean that the Unionist parties in Scotland should be so backward in coming forward.
While one can lay many errors at the doors of Downing Street over its handling of the crisis in recent weeks - and, no doubt, the SNP will - there is one overriding lesson which is inescapable.
Without our membership of the UK and without the funds available from English as well as Scottish taxpayers, the Scottish banking bailout we have just seen would not have been possible.
In other words, thousands of Scots banking and other jobs would have disappeared, the business sector in Scotland would have been cut to the bone and the Scottish economy would have gone into a tailspin.
The notion that has above all fuelled the rise of the independence movement in Scotland is that being a small country on the fringes of Europe was no barrier to joining the economic elite. The UK, we have been told, has run out of steam and by going it alone, we could usher in a golden Scottish economic age.
That notion looks decidedly specious now that the booms in Ireland and Iceland have turned into horrendous busts. Smallness has not given them any advantage. Indeed, one could argue that it has left them more vulnerable to the global waves crashing down on their economic systems. Would an independent Scotland have been a special case? You decide.
But if Iceland and Ireland are not available to the SNP to make the case for independence, there's always Norway. Mr Salmond spoke yesterday about how the Norwegians were able to weather the storm because of their oil fund.
But even the Norwegians have had to take drastic action to shore up their banks in recent weeks - for the second time in two decades. Growth is slowing to a crawl and the country's credit crisis has seen this one-time Nordic leopard calling on the Fed in Washington to buy out $5billion of toxic banking debt.
The SNP government has a point when it says that Britain's oil riches have not been spent in the wisest possible way in the past and that more should have been saved for a rainy day. But that is entirely different from basing a whole economy on a commodity that only a few weeks ago was priced at about $150 a barrel and has now plummeted towards $90 a barrel, with every expectation that it will go even lower as a worldwide recession looms.
In any case, the first purpose of a Scottish oil fund would be to fund the budget deficit that independence would bring.
The Norwegian oil fund has grown only because many billions of kroner have been diverted from revenue spending over the past ten years. That has been possible thanks to some of the highest personal tax rates and fuel prices in the Western world.
Is that really the way Mr Salmond and the SNP want us to go?
Monday, 6th October 2008, is the anniversary of the first full day of the 1936 Jarrow March and sees the launch of another campaign for Justice for England. The English Lobby, a not for profit corporation, is launching a specialist legal unit to challenge anti-English discrimination by pursuing legal remedies in the courts and tribunals; e.g. Damages claims and Judicial Review etc.. Despite the efforts of the British Political Establishment, there is increasing awareness in England of widespread official discrimination against English people and of any display of Englishness. Recent examples have been the exclusion of English applicants from an Environment Agency training programme, cancellation of conference facilities for an English organisation by the Royal Armouries, and local government obstruction of celebrations to mark St George’s Day and no provision was made in the 2001 General Census of Britain for English people to record their national, ethnic or racial identity as defined by law.
There have also been many cases where businesses have discriminated against English people. Tesco even refuses to put the English flag on English products.The English Lobby has established its legal unit to start the fightback!The English Lobby team includes professional lawyers and will be pursuing legal remedies against those who discriminate contrary to law against the English. The courts have recognised the English as a “national origin”, as a “race”, and as an “ethnicity” within the meaning of the Race Relations Acts.
The English Lobby aims to ensure that the rights, privileges and protections afforded by the Race Relations Act and other statutes are applied to English people.Mr Alan England, Head of the Legal Unit of the English Lobby, said: “For too long the protections provided by Race Relations legislation have not been enforced by English people. The English Lobby aims to right that wrong by providing access to free legal advice and assistance for all those aggrieved by anti-English Discrimination.”Mr Robin Tilbrook, Director, said: “We are pleased to have initiated such a brave endeavour, which is a full frontal legal attack on ‘political correctness’! Over the years, we have had senior ministers in this Labour Government, such as Robin Cook, John Prescott and Jack Straw, denying the existence of England as a nation and disparaging pride in being English in a way which would have been unacceptable about any other people.
Now we can look forward to seeing such people being sued!
Asks Brian Simpson, one of Labour’s “North Western Region” MEPs in a recent edition of the Labour magazine “Egremont Today”
“I don’t know about you, but I am getting a bit fed up with those who keep telling me we need to have an extra public holiday centred around St George’s Day. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for an extra public holiday, but I am afraid I do not consider myself English. I consider myself British and I believe the extra public holiday should be on a day that is close to all of us British people, not one of its regional parts.
So, I find myself in agreement with George Galloway MP, when he says Battle of Britain Day in September would be the ideal candidate. It is an important date in our history and September can still offer some reasonable weather on which to have a public holiday. Unfortunately English nationalism is on the rise and although 56% of the population still favour being in the UK, 34% believes we should separate into 4 different countries, which I believe would be a disaster.
Fuelled by Margaret Thatcher who did her level best to destroy all three of them. For the Welsh, Scottish and Irish, a national identity exists, but what identity exists in England? I feel as a born and bred Lancastrian, that I have more in common with the Scots and Welsh than I do with Southern England.
For me, the English Parliament would be an object disaster for the North of England, as it would be dominated by London and the South East and we would be treated like second-class citizens. No, keep the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the sports field; but in the world that really matters, let’s stick to the United Kingdom and end all of this nationalism nonsense.
I am proud to be British, so let’s have a public holiday on a day relevant to Britain. What do you think?”
S Askham (Letters, 29th September) raises some very interesting and valid points, and asks some questions which deserve an answer.
Many of us are aware of this problem and some of us are trying to do something about it. It was discussed at the recent annual Conference of the English Democrats Party - the final speaker gave us some ideas of what to do about it. The important point to note is that to deny the existence of the English, to insist that they are 'white British' and not English, to state that England and the English don't exist, can be an offence under the Race Relations Act 1974.
There is a widespread move to 'brainwash' everyone into thinking that 'Britain' has replaced England. Even the 'Echo' is not immune - a feature article last week mentioned fruit grown in Herefordshire as 'British', yet, when I last looked, Herefordshire was an English county. Another example is of the recent Beijing Olympic medal-winners, or of Andy Murray (the Scottish tennis player) as against Tim Henman (the British tennis player). Still another is when the Prime Minister talks of the 'nations and regions' of the UK, meaning Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and what was England now divided into 9 regions.
Only yesterday I was talking to a little lad who goes to our church. He was dressed in the 'England' football outfit with a St George's flag wristband. I pointed to his wristband and said that it was the same as on a badge I wear, which shows the shape of England with our flag superimposed on it. I asked him if he knew that England did not just mean football. Yes, he replied, it means cricket, volleyball and a list of other sports. Did he not know that England was not just about sport, I asked? No, he did not, he said. That's just what it is all about, nothing else.
If S Askham cares to contact the local English Democrats he or she can find out how to take this matter further. Mr Brian Lee is Chairman of our local Eastern Counties Branch. There is a slogan 'This flag is for life, not just for football'. I too state that I am English rather than 'white British' whenever the question arises, and I would challenge anyone I saw 'altering it back', as S Askham says happened at the local hospital. No one has the right to tell me what I am and what I must be. If someone can have the ethnic group 'Irish traveller' - what's ethnic about travelling? - then I have the right to be English.
S Askham must not apologise for what you are and what your ancestors fought for. If some think it's xenophobic, racist or 'sour little Englander', that's their problem. We know who we are and we want it to be recognised. If others can do it, so can we.
Today the Evening Standard is saying:‘Suspicions that Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought to limit the political damage from the HBOS takeover were heightened today after Lloyds TSB vowed to protect jobs in Scotland.
A GRIEVING family from Sheffield have been told they can't bury their stepfather on a Saturday - because he was not Muslim.
Retired steel erector Harold "Charlie" Lemaire, from Woodseats, died last week aged 75 from pneumonia.
His stepdaughter Jean Maltby, from Greenhill, wanted the funeral to be held this Saturday so family who live outside the city - including her brother Stephen, now living in Dorset, and relatives from the Isle of Man - could attend.
But when her funeral director called City Road Cemetery to arrange a memorial service in the chapel followed by burial, he was told the funeral would not be allowed on a Saturday - because the family was not Muslim.
Today Sheffield Council confirmed it does not offer funerals at the weekend except to Muslims, in line with the rules of the Islamic faith that the dead must be buried as soon as possible.
But Abdool Gooljar, president of the Sheffield branch of the Society of Islam, said the council should try to meet the needs of every resident of the city.
"The last thing we want to do is cause more upset at the time of bereavement, and I would urge a re-think so everybody has the right to bury their dead when they want," he said. "I, firstly as a Muslim and secondly as a citizen, do not want preferential treatment.
"We are living in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society and we should endeavour to meet the needs of every citizen in this city."
Martin Green, senior bereavement services manager for Sheffield, said the council's policy was in line with that of others around Britain.
"The council recognised the specific cultural and religious needs surrounding burial and has been offering an extended burial service to the Muslim community," he said.
"This degree of flexibility is in line with services offered by major cities throughout the UK.
"The service was reviewed and agreed last year in consultation with representatives of other religious communities, a cross section of elected members, and local funeral directors."
But Ms Maltby said she felt it was unfair to offer weekend funerals to one religion and not to others. "It should be one rule for everyone - and I don't think the people of Sheffield realise the council has made this decision," she said.
"It goes against the council's policy of equal rights. They are making a service available to one sector of the community and not another. Having the funeral on a weekday is going to make it really difficult for some of our family to make it. I don't think the majority of people would have Saturday as a preference, but for us it would be the most convenient."
Another day another bad news story for fellow Scot Gordon Brown.
Salmond has over 60% approval rating for his government in Scotland, while Brown only scrapes in with a 53% approval rating in Scotland. Things look bad for Labour as the SNP look as if they will become the dominant party at the the next General Election.
Should that happy event transpire and Salmond is the majority leader in Scotland then we can be sure a vote to leave the United Kingdom will be top of Salmond's agenda.
Where will that leave Britophile Brown? Let's hope he won't emigrate to England following his unemployment as sure as hell England will be the only place left he can wave his Union flag for the timebeing.
The Electoral Commission Bureaucrats have been beavering away with their great recommendations for electoral change, however, as you would expect from a Bureaucratic monolith the emphasis for change is being driven by the "paperwork" rather than the need to overhaul the joke that has become our electoral system.
The key findings of the Electoral Commission relate largely to the need for more training of Returning Officers, more money to run elections and a more efficient refinement to the election process, rather than any serious analysis of the "dogs breakfast" that is out election system.
Whilst the pen pushers observe that the UK election system is a relic from the Victorian age, there is very little useful commentary on what is needed to replace it. Rather it contains a bureaucrats eye view as to how the paperwork that accompanies the current dogs breakfast could be streamlined so the poor government employees don't get over worked or become the butt of the electorate's anger.
What a missed opportunity to overhaul this decaying monolith once and for all.
Yes we all know that the electoral systems in Scotland were fiendishly difficult to understand, which was why so many votes were disallowed, but the bureaucrats designed that one so they are really to blame.
Yes we also know that fraud in completing votes is on the increase, largely because councils fail to check and verify the nationality of those who claim a place on the electoral role and at voting times people are not required to prove who they are when they vote. If the EC are suggesting that we should have identity cards enforced upon us as a condition of being able to vote, that is totally unacceptable.
In our view the most important calls for change have been omitted.
1) We should have ONLY one method to elect politicians. At the moment we have a dysfunctional combination of first past the post and Proportional Representation. Designed like that to keep the pretty disreputable duo running UK politics in a game of hand ball, where only one of them can actually win an election. The consequence of that is that the hapless UK public have a choice between the clueless and the damned. No choice, which has been the environment our sclerotic politics has fallen into for some years.
2) Every vote should count, therefore PR must be the way forward.
Sadly for commonsense we are no nearer getting the "democratic" properly working in our so called "democracy" and frankly until we do, we have no right to claim to be a democratic state, particularly when we have a system which allows a political party with just 22% of the popular vote to become the government! How laughable is that?
Oh dear, the National Institute for "Clinical Excellence" (sic) is now exposed for what it is. A pretty meanminded, government inspired rationaing organisation that many doctors had feared would be the case.
A number of leading doctors have condemned the organisation for disallowing largely English patients access to the drugs the rest of Europe has.
What a national scandal we have and what little effort the political parties are putting into resolving it!!
Clearly NICE needs to be replaced by an organisation that is upto the job. The time that organisation takes to come to any conclusion is risible. Another government quango, slurping coffee and nibbling prawn sandwiches while it endlessly deliberates about approved drugs it wants to deny to the needy in England.
Cost is an issue and yes we have to make hard decisions but there are a myriad of things the government could be doing to make more money available to people who need life saving drugs.
Why can't the public opt to pay additionally for a supplementary contribution to their NHI contribution which secures access to any life saving drugs they may need in their lifetime? If everyone was asked to pay a small but affordable ring fenced contribution as an insurance policy should they ever need such drugs then the problem would be solved, that concept is clearly beyond the wit of UK mainstream politicians.
How about stopping anyone who is not a UK national from accessing the NHS, by ensuring everyone who travels to the UK has valid health insurance should they need it? Does that sound too much like good sense? We couldn't possibly suggest that people pay for the services they use could we????
How about charging all those who turn up at A&E on Friday and Saturday nights drunk and disorderly? They already charge people for road traffic accidents, surely brawling in the high street is just as culpable and so a penalty to pay for the services to patch these people up is justified? That should be a money spinner!
What about prevention? Why is the NHS the National Sickness Service and NOT the National Health Service. Why doesn't the NHS do more early stage scanning and diagnostic work to prevent people needing life saving drugs, a few extra scans could save millions in life saving drugs, but then again that is too obvious and clearly the NHS prefers the cure rather than prevention approach.
The problems we have with the NHS are not beyond our skills to resolve. It will take more money certainly, but if people took more responsibility for their health, the NHS focused its resources on prevention and those freeloading on the NHS were identified and eradicated, we would surprise ourselves how much money we actually have to serve the health needs of the English people.
....but then commonsense and UK mainstream political parties are mutually exclusive.
Few of us thought our performance at Beijing would be anything other than passable prior to the event starting. For so long have we spent vast sums of money getting nowhere fast.
The performance of the GB Team displays something that has been lacking for many years, sharp professional determination to go for gold and a shrugging off of the underdog mantra that "taking part" is good enough.
The determination to go for Gold and to turn round to all those PC zealots who have preached for a generation that "winning" is a dirty word can now eat their ridiculous dogma.
The people of this country want to back "winners". People of integrity, people with spirit and dedication and people who are not afraid to win....when it matters.
Well done to all those athletes who have reaffirmed the nation's faith in amateur athletics and the professionalism and dedication that could leave the UK 3rd in the world in terms of overall medal performance.
Whatever happens next will be to come, however, we have seen a truly stunning achievement and all those coaches, trainers, psychologists and roadies that have supported our talented men and women deserve our complete admiration.
Well done to all the athletes representing the UK - a brilliant team effort.
Gordon Brown faces plot by Labour MPs amid double blow in polls.
Dozens of senior Labour MPs, including several former ministers are set to write to the Cabinet urging them to force a leadership contest that could topple Gordon Brown.
A popular Scottish tourist attraction provoked outrage by banning English visitors and destroying 'English' items such as bone china and the works of Shakespeare. English visitors will only be allowed entry if they sign a scroll swearing allegiance to Scotland, while those from other countries will be encouraged to bring in items deemed 'typically English’ to be smashed.
The character of England's countryside has changed fundamentally over the past decade following an influx of immigrants which have helped rapidly push up house prices and demand for new developments, an official report has revealed.
English Democrats came a close 2nd in the Haltemprice and Howden By-Election.
Well done to all the team and for Joanne the candidate who did the people of England proud!
Thank you also the people of Haltemprice and Howden for your faith in us and for coming out on to vote on a miserable day.
It was a stunning result for the English Democrats and as we kept our deposit it had an extra special taste of success.
Here are the results!
Haltemprice and Howden: Result in full
Conservative David Davis has been re-elected as the MP for Haltemprice and Howden. He won the by-election with a majority of 15,355 votes. Here is the result in full:
David Michael Davis - Conservative 17,113 votes
Shan Oakes - Green Party 1,758
Joanne Robinson - English Democrats 1,714
Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British 544
Gemma Dawn Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party 521
Jill Saward - Independent 492
Mad Cow-Girl - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party 412
Walter Edward Sweeney - Independent 238
David Craig - Independent 135
David Pinder - The New Party 135
David Icke - No party listed 110
Hamish Howitt - Freedom 4 Choice 91
Christopher John Talbot - Socialist Equality Party 84
Grace Christine Astley - Independent 77
George Hargreaves - Christian Party 76
David Laurence Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party 44
When the good people of Haltemprice and Howden consider who they wish to vote for on Thursday they need to bear a few things in mind.
The issues on which this by-election were based hinged around the belief that "British Civil Liberties" were being undermined.
The English Democrats believe that the issues run much deeper than that and that the plight of the people of England under all three parties, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative is in fact one of the untold and poorly publicised scandals which really needs to be addressed.
Yes, our civil rights have been abused. But let us not forget that many of these encroachments have been by the same political parties who are belatedly protesting that things have "gone too far".
An Englishman's home is no longer his castle, with a stream of busy body civil servants given access to our private domain for failing to pay a tv licence, have a rate review, VAT or tax issues, and a range of other reasons now confirmed as being "legitimate" for the State to gain access to our homes.
Additionally, rights to imprisonment without trial of 26 days had already been approved by the parties now arguing 42 days is too much! Surely these politicians should have put their foot down earlier?
The signing of the Maastricht Treaty, by a Conservative Government was a pivotal "sell out" of the people of England, a Treaty which the politicians "promised" would not affect our sovereignty, was in fact the Treaty that made us no longer in charge of our own destiny.
The denial of the people of England a devolutionary settlement worthy of 50 million people has also been withheld by parties of all three colours, none of whom will acknowledge the unfairness and outrageous abuse of democratic principles but who (collectively) conspire against 85% of the UK population to deny us a right to a Parliament of our own, a first minister we have elected and the right to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters, in the same way the Welsh and Scots vote on purely English matters - England in 2008 is a "democracy free" zone and much shame should be heaped on all three parties for abusing our country in this way.
All three parties are content to allow the appalling anomaly of a first minister of England assume his role without any democratic endorsement by the people of England and yet at the same time prosecute a war in Iraq using bringing "democracy" to a society that doesn't have it as justification! Yet, without any hint of embarrassment, denying the people of England the right to decide who their First Minister should be and to add insult to injury have accepted a person who has been elected by the people of another country!
Our Constitution such as it is, has been abused, undermined and left in tatters, as a government with less than 22% of the popular vote drives through policies the people of England object to, tuition fees and trust hospitals being cases in point, being made law by MPs elected by other countries (Wales, Scotland and Ireland) and yet no one has the courage or presence of mind to draw attention to these outrages.
The English Democrats will be standing in Haltemprice and Howden on Thursday because we know the people of that constituency understand the real issues and also understand that the English Democrats are absolutely right to ensure that the full extent of the treachery of the main three parties needs to be exposed for what it is.
This by-election isn't about 42 days, it isn't even solely about civil liberties, it is about the wholesale betrayal of the main parties in this country to treat the English people with respect, to allow our people the democratic rights the rest of the UK have which are "specifically" denied to the English and it about exposing the farse that is our political system and the sub-standard people who are governing in our name.
Whether it is corruption, fiddling expenses, railroading legislation by bribing MPs, denying the people a right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, or denying the people of England a democracy worthy of the name, all these things need to be exposed and the English Democrats will be doing this on Thursday, because England deserves better, England deserves a party that will give our nation back our self respect.
Vote English Democrats on Thursday and make a stand for working people fed up with SPIN politics.
Anyone who has ever had their life saved by the NHS will know and instinctively understand what a national treasure we have in this service. Millions owe the NHS a debt of gratitude. We salute the NHS for 60 sparkling years of selfless dedication to the people of this country and hope that, for all our sakes, there will always be an NHS that we can depend on.
The problem is however, that the politicians are constantly putting the boot into the system, many changing demands, many changing systems, too much centralisation, with plans that could herald too much decentralisation and in the end, a chaotic, fragmented, health service run along profit making lines in England but quite different beasts operating in Wales and Scotland.
We all want an NHS that works, but we are not so daft as not to realise that in a world of heightening demands and expectations paying for it will (very soon) become an unaffordable pipedream.
The English Democrats recognise that urgent decisions about the future of the NHS have to be taken and taken now. Our concerns are that too many people who have never contributed to the NHS are using the service to which they have no entitlement, this means that the people who have contributed all their lives are being pushed to the back of the queue. This was a concern Betty Boothroyd, the former Speaker of Parliament pointed out a few years ago an intolerable abuse of the system which much be stopped.
In the September Conference of the English Democrats we will be putting to the vote of the membership, the policy that all non nationals from none -EU countries can only travel to the UK if they are in posession of valid healthcare insurance for the period of their stay in the United Kingdom. We believe that making this simple change to legislation, and ensuring people present their insurance certification upon arrival , will potentially save the NHS millions from people who travel to the United Kingdom to obtain free health care. The fact is the NHS is not a health service for the world, it has to be paid for like everything else and for far too long, people have been availing themselves of a service to which they ar not entitled. This must come to an end. The NHS have admitted they are failing to police this aspect of abuse and the English Democrats believe that now the nettle must be grasped and that theft from the NHS must cease.
Greater emphasis on prevention rather than cure has to make more sense financially into the longer term, and new policies based around preventative screening for deseases will be the next area that policy makers need to address.
Health MOT's and ensuring people take more responsibility for their own health is now a priority.
Public or private? Well, whatever produces better quality and better value. PFI has not been a wild success and it is a moot point whether private is always best, however, a hybrid perhaps "a not for profit" provider with the disciplines of the market but the dedication of the public service might be a better option in the long run.
Let's have a big round of applause for the NHS and for all those thousands of dedicated workers who have done so much good over the last 60 years!
Why not, afterall big bosses of failed multinationals get rewarded for poor performance, why shouldn't the civil servants have their monumental cock ups similarly recognised.....and rewarded?
The pretty alarming story of a teacher in Cheshire, "forcing" children to partake in an Islamic act of worship as part of an RE lesson, is yet a further example of how the unrestrained lunacy of politically correct zealots is damaging our Christian society. One could never imagine the teachers of Saudi Arabia so readily asking their children to pray in front of a crucifix. Only in labour's barmy Britain is that likely to occur.
The Telegraph newspaper details in some depth the niaive and frankly offensive behaviour of a religious education teacher, employed by the state but whose behaviour is clearly damaging to young and impressionable minds. England is not and never will be an Islamic country, and the disgraceful behaviour of a teacher pushing the boundaries of acceptability must be challenged.
Religious Education should be just that, a theoretical review of all the world religions, not the practical experience of them. Publicly funded education is not here as a recruiting sergent for any religion and such behaviour must be outlawed.
Perhaps one of the saddest truisms is that the BBC, so fond of producing programmes which reinvent people, homes and concepts has struggled (without much success) to give itself a significant makeover.
Today in a pretty "straight to the heart" report from the Centre for Policy Studies an insiders view of how the BBC must change is now confronting the corporation.
The BBC receives £4 Billion pounds per year to churn out pretty mediocre pap, managed by a self confessed Liberal left elite who have lost the confidence of the majority of its viewers.
The costs of running the BBC over two years could probably pay for 3 Mega Aircraft Carriers, let alone the two announced earlier in the week, that will be securing 10,000 jobs way into the future! The expense of it is mind boggling.
The BBC has become a luxury the viewers should no longer be expected to fund to the extent it is sucking up money. The whole country is hide bound by this inward looking corporation, a throw back to the old civil servant days, stuffed full of paper shufflers and fence sitters, ever eager to push out the latest bit of government propaganda - of whatever colour.
The following article from the Telegraph says what many of us have concluded and for the BBC the clock is most certainly ticking. The Centre for Policy Studies and the Telegraph have kicked off a badly needed debate and one the BBC (whether it likes it or not) will have to take on board, because change is coming and swift and merciless it will have to be.
Last Updated: 1:47am BST 04/07/2008
Credit: Telegraph
HOW TO SAVE THE BBC FROM ITSELF................
Jeff Randall argues that a combination of corporate imperialism and institutional self-regard stops the broadcaster seeing where its future lies
Few British institutions are capable of generating more storm and stress than the BBC. Find me someone who has no view at all on the corporation and I'll show you a caveman.
Even the BBC's director-general, Mark Thompson, admits the licence fee is 'a tax'
Auntie's salad days are long gone, yet she remains an aphrodisiac of debate. From alleged bias and method of funding, to presenters' pay-packets and quality of output, the BBC is a reliable energiser of lacklustre dinner-parties.
The blogosphere is clogged with comment about the BBC, much of it from extremes. It doesn't matter whether postings are on the Guardian's website or The Daily Telegraph's, there is a juxtaposition of love and hateBooks, television programmes, radio documentaries, discussion pamphlets and, of course, newspaper columns are devoted to salving, scrapping, denouncing and defending the BBC.
Having worked there full-time for nearly five years - a period of exhilaration and exasperation in equal measure - I am now a sad junkie of all this stuff.
advertisement
A new dissection emerges today. Written by Sir Antony Jay, a corporation veteran and co-author of the Yes, Minister series, How To Save The BBC is published by the Centre for Policy Studies, a Right-of-centre think tank.
The BBC's director-general, Mark Thompson, should do a bulk deal on 25,000 copies and issue it free to every member of staff. This would cost a fraction of what the BBC spends on ludicrous awaydays, while jolting thousands of jobsworths who creep about the corporation's corridors, holding meetings, dodging accountability and hoping to survive long enough to collect a pension that is funded in part by people who never watch the BBC.
When I was its business editor, and the management was trying to crank up support for a renewed licence settlement (on even more generous terms than those left behind by Sir John Birt), I was invited to a dinner for opinion formers by the then head of Radio 4, Helen Boaden. It was attended by business luminaries, such as Sir Stuart Rose (Marks & Spencer), Allan Leighton (Royal Mail) and Sly Bailey (Trinity Mirror).
Helen was one of the few BBC managers with whom I got on. She has a breezy charm that's not a distinguishing feature of most White City "suits". Unfortunately (for her) she assumed that I would be on-message and asked me to set out for our guests what the future of the BBC should be.
I described a broadcaster that had been scaled back to high-quality news, current affairs and documentaries, including works of brilliance such as Blue Planet. This could be achieved, I suggested, with no more than two radio stations and two television channels - and for a much diminished fee.
Helen winced and quickly moved round the table. I was never again asked to attend a lobbying session for taxpayers' largesse. Inside the BBC, my views are regarded as a thought-crime, somewhere between treachery and heresy, even though I am a fan who believes less would deliver more. The idea of stopping expansion, reining back and, yes, cutting costs, including jobs, is still deeply offensive to the majority of staffers who hold a quasi-religious belief in the corporation as a force for enlightenment.
Many seem not to have noticed, or refuse to accept, that, as Jay points out: "There is no longer a case for taking £4 billion a year from the public to produce programmes they do not want or can obtain free elsewhere."
Jay's thesis, elegantly expressed, is not that the BBC is an evil empire in need of breaking up. Far from being an abolitionist, he is keen to protect it from destruction by a combination of new technology and a growing revulsion against the £139.50 licence fee, which even Thompson admits is "a tax".
As the BBC makes flagship programmes available online, viewers using PCs and lap-tops will not, technically, be receiving broadcasts. So why pay the licence fee? A court case to test this cannot be far away.
At the same time, there are millions who do not share Thompson's assessment of the BBC's "civic, social and cultural benefits". In short, they don't want to fund something which they find irrelevant or worse.
An online petition, Scrap the BBC Licence Fee, argues: "The world has moved on since the days when the BBC was central to British life… any modern government that fails to acknowledge this fact is quite simply defying the will of the people."
One reason why the BBC cannot reform itself is the assumption, buried deep in its soul, that it is obliged to provide a total broadcasting service. Once the corporation spots a new avenue of activity, its tanks flood into the space.
According to Jay: "Corporate gigantism and belief in a unique moral mission have made the BBC what it is today. And yet both are of vanishingly small concern to viewers and listeners." It's the high-handed moral rectitude that many outsiders find so infuriating.
In 2003, I was fighting an internal battle to bring more balance to the BBC's coverage of immigration. I felt that some of its reporters had been programmed to promote the benefits of cultural diversity as an incontrovertible fact.
Fed up with what he perceived to be my subversion, one of the BBC's most senior figures sent me an email: "The BBC internally is not neutral about multiculturalism. It believes in it and promotes diversity. Let's face up to that."
I was amazed that he felt unembarrassed to put this in a formal memo. It revealed an arrogant mindset at odds with millions of his customers. Impartiality was fine, but only if it confirmed the prejudices of the BBC's editorial elite, the self-appointed custodians of liberal values.
Jay says that in order to be rescued from itself, the BBC needs to undergo a "spiritual conversion". The corporate imperialism and institutional self-regard are a millstone. "It must seek respect not for what it is, but for what it does." This can best be achieved, he argues, by chopping out or selling off everything, except Radio 4, "a unique speech" station, and one television channel.
Despite its official bleating, the BBC is not underfunded. By comparison with rivals, it is, as Thompson once admitted, wallowing in a "Jacuzzi of cash". The problem is that it tries to do too much, spreading its resources too thinly.
I don't know if the very best of the BBC could be sustained were it to be cut back in line with Jay's plan, with an annual income of just £1.5 billion. But his conclusion is compelling: "The BBC's remit is to produce a volume of high-quality programmes. With much reduced output, its long tradition of producing fine programmes and a budget of £4 million a day, it should be able to achieve it triumphantly."
Jeff Randall was the BBC's business editor, 2001-05. He is currently making a documentary series, a history of the City, for Radio Four
The annoncement that the MOD are to finally get the go ahead for two new air craft carriers was much expected by Scottish workers who stand to secure 10,000 jobs at three Scottish shipyards.
Apparently some work is coming to Portsmouth, although it is unclear exactly what benefits this monster MOD contract will contribute to the English economy, Scotland's financial gain is more clear cut they get three quarters of the work and England gets a quarter!
With so much anger over the unfairness of the Barnett Formula, the awarding of this contract to three of Scotland's shipyards may be seen as an alternative route to direct more funds to Scotland without it being classified as part of the Barnett Formula, although most of those in England will see it for what it is, a cynical bribe to try and keep Scots voting Labour as the rest of the country turn their backs on them.
Wouldn't it be great if England had such patriotic politicians looking after English employment interests for a change, Brown is clearly sticking to his personal commitment of ensuring the interests of the people of Scotland come first, you can't knock him for his naked nationalism, just a pity the English politicians at Westminster don't share a similar commitment for the people of England.
Already covered in the newspapers, but kept rather quiet by the "would be" Eurosceptic Tories.
The truth is of course the Tories have clearly got excellent relations with the EU or the swap was just a marvellous coincidence.
What do you think it is most likely to be?????????
Read on and be shocked, out of principle the English Democrats would have refused such a swap with such a disreputable organisation, but then again.....as the Tories have shown us MONEY TALKS and the EU have plenty of it!
Re: Haltemprice & Howden By-election The English Democrats are pleased to announce that Joanne Robinson has been nominated for the forthcoming by-election in Haltemprice and Howden, under the slogan "Putting England First!". Joanne was born on 2nd February 1957 in Hull. She has been married since 1977 to the same man! She has 6 ‘O’ Levels. She has a HNC in Canine Behaviour and Training at Bishop Burton in 2004. After a variety of jobs, including as a Civil Servant, Joanne went into book-keeping specialising in petrol stations and was a sole proprietor from 1992 to 1998 at the Forth Service Station on Spring Bank. Since then Joanne has worked as a legal cashier, service station manager and for the last 3 years part-time Office Manager for an Event Management Company. Politically Joanne had been a Conservative voter but she became active in the Referendum Party. Joanne was the UKIP Parliamentary candidate in the General Election in 2001, when she got 945 votes. In 2003 Joanne was a UKIP local candidate but she became increasingly disappointed by UKIP’s leadership failure to capitalize on their momentum. Joanne now thinks that UKIP is “dead but not yet buried”, and that it is also insufficiently concerned about England, so she joined the English Democrats. Joanne stood for the English Democrats in 2007 in Tranby Ward in the local elections within this constituency and got 544 votes (18.82%) easily beating Labour and close to the Conservatives. Also this year, although there were no local elections within the constituency, the English Democrats stood in 4 adjoining wards, in Hull, and beat the Conservative candidates 3 out of 4 times. Joanne says: “The English Democrats are offering a fresh start and reject the cliché ridden and spin politics of the past. We offer the politics of a common national identity and common values. Our politics are riddled with spin and political correctness, a vote for the English Democrats is a vote for honest and plain speaking”. Joanne says: “There should be an immediate referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. It is wholly wrong for Labour to try to impose this Treaty on us, contrary to their own specific manifesto commitment that there should be a referendum. The people of the Republic of Ireland have said NO – WE WANT OUR SAY”. Joanne says: “There should be free residential car for the elderly, as is available in Scotland. It is wrong that pensioners’ homes in England are being seized to pay for this”. Joanne says: “We also demand access to all NHS drugs – not a “postcode lottery”, which means that English patients cannot receive some expensive drugs which are freely available in Scotland.” Joanne says: “There should be an end to the unjustified subsidies to other parts of the UK – We want a fair system for all.” Joanne says: “England can no longer sustain uncontrolled mass immigration. It should be stopped. It places an unacceptable strain on all our services. All previous governments have allowed this situation to get out of control”. Joanne says: “The Government should seek to protect society and not the criminals”. Joanne says: “There should be an English Parliament, with an English Prime Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones”. Joanne also says: “The voters of Haltemprice and Howden have the chance to send a clear message to the government and the rest of the stale political Establishment that the people of England are no longer prepared to be treated as second class citizens within the UK. Let us put England’s interests first” Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, said: “I am delighted to welcome Joanne’s nomination. It is a clear sign of the speed with which the English Democrats are growing. Even Labour’s Derek Wyatt MP a few days ago said, at Westminster, (on the 18th June) “..I am convinced that standing still is not an option. The present arrangements are producing growing resentment all over the United Kingdom, particularly in England..”. Robin Tilbrook also said that: “A vote for Joanne and the English Democrats is a positive vote for the people of Haltemprice and Howden. It is a vote for ENGLAND and for an English Parliament, First Minister and Government for England”.
For further information, or a photograph of Joanne, contact:
The English Democrats were out in force at Henley today, reminding the locals that they live in England, despite the fact that the local Council preferred that WE didn't!
Was there ever a place that needed an English Democrats MP more??
Henley has for too long been the preserve of Barking Boris and the Butcher's Apron ensemble. So full of bile for dear Old England that even the local council despises the flag of St George.
After the team were told to "remove" English bunting, for it might scare the horses, normality resumed as the Red White and Blue clogged up the high street. Ironically the local church was sporting England's national flag, a point overlooked by the over zealous members of the Town Hall self hatred brigade.
Oh the joy of living in a democracy, who says free speech is dead????
When a place like Henley objects to the flying of the nation's flag you know that the rot is well and truly setting in. Let's hope that Derek Allpass a resolute English Democrat Patriot will defend the rights of the English to be English in England and that one day the Britophiles who despise England with a terrifying degree of loathing will be cast from our midsts. Amen to that!
Here is a video of the day's campaigning, what great shots and to quote Darren Riley on seeing the sight of the Cross of St George fluttering in the beeze in Henley....."Don't it look great!"
Well done to all those who took Saturday out of their own free time to defend England and her right to equality -respect and thanks to the whole team.
Things may seem bad, but however bad it seems, be sure that the situation is even worse.
The European Union is toxic to democracy and to fair dealing. An animal is never so dangerous then when it is lying wounded. This is true of the tyrant Mugabe and it is certainly true of the Political Elite running the EU.
With our money and with our power the cabal of Europhile politicians will be ignoring their own rules about unanimous Treaty ratification, and will seek to ballet dance their way through rejected a Constitution and now a rejected Treaty with a mixture of arrogance, indifference and public contempt.
To the Euro politicians the public are an unwashed ignorant mass, the usual perception of a dictatorship, ours is not to reason why ours is to do or die. Well, the peoples of Europe refuse to accept this.
IF as we expect the politicians of Europe are determined to bulldoze this Treaty through, knowing that the people don't want it then the people have two choices. They either seek through democratic means to change the people at the top, or through a process of mass civil disobedience reject EU interference in their daily lives by refusing to accept the legitimacy of the EU.
Last night in the House of Lords the vote to ratify the Lisbon Treaty was passed. Shockingly the margin in favour was quite high. We understand from a peer at the proceedings that one of the reasons it was quite high, is that a good number of Conservative peers were actually at Ascot and as such were unable to vote!
This is a scandalous state of affairs if it is true. That the future of our national sovereignty was decided by a large number of unelected people in the Lords, a proportion of which never even bothered to turn up to vote on this momentous measure because they were too busy placing a bet on the horses.
That, is the quality and startling conclusion the electorate have to draw from the pantomime in the House of Lords. It is really a disgraceful betrayal of the nation and our democracy if that revelation were true.
Another reason to elect the Lords if one needed one!
Latest from the Guardian Newspaper.............
France is pressing European leaders to set a deadline today for a plan of action to salvage the EU's grand reform project rejected by Irish voters.
But President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan to find a way out of Europe's crisis of confidence by October has run into resistance, not least from Ireland, which rejected the EU's Treaty of Lisbon by referendum.
Desperate to find a way of resurrecting their blueprint for Europe's direction, EU leaders meet in Brussels today. They hope that Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, can offer suggestions on a way out of the impasse.
Despite the French push for an October deadline, however, Cowen warned yesterday that he would not be rushed. "I will impress upon them the need to avoid prejudicing the process which we must now undertake in Ireland," he told parliament in Dublin. Cowen said he hoped the rest of the EU would "accord us the time we need to play our part in understanding last week's vote".
Exactly a week after Irish voters said no to the Lisbon treaty, which from next January was supposed to reform the EU's institutions and redefine how decisions are taken, the summit will try to chart a way forward.
Slovenia, chairing today's summit, predicted there would be no repeat of the European crisis that followed the French and Dutch referendum defeats of a European constitution three years ago. European leaders appear determined not to administer the last rites to the treaty, despite the Irish rebuff.
France is seeking to set a deadline of an October summit for a plan to revive the treaty and is also said to be furious with the European commission, blaming its chief, José Manuel Barroso, for failing to make the EU more popular with voters.
"This summit could get nasty," said a senior source in Brussels. "There's an anti-Barroso campaign out of Paris."
Germany would also like a swift agreement on what to do next, with the favoured option being that Ireland, in return for some declaratory concessions, should stage a referendum rerun, perhaps next spring. Concessions might include assurance that Ireland would always have a European commissioner, for example, as well as declarations on the sanctity of Ireland's abortion ban, military neutrality, and sovereignty over taxation rates.
But Cowen, according to sources in Dublin, will tell his European partners that at this stage his government cannot countenance a second referendum.
"One of the main goals will be to calm the Europeans down and not inflame the situation either in the EU or back at home any further," said an Irish government source. "It will be made clear to the EU partners that it is politically impossible for Ireland to have a rerun."
Cowen is to outline his options and to offer an analysis of the Irish rejection at a Brussels dinner this evening. It is probably too early for any clear strategy to emerge.
Officials and diplomats in Brussels are drawing analogies with Denmark in 1992 after the Danes, in a referendum, rejected the Treaty of Maastricht and then voted for the treaty in a new plebiscite after being granted exemptions from the treaty's provisions.
The Irish resistance to the pressure is being bolstered by Britain and others. Dublin sources said that Cowen was "very happy" with the British position following his talks with Gordon Brown in Belfast on Monday. Brown is expected to discuss the options with Sarkozy in Paris today before the Brussels summit.
The French and the Germans also want assurances that ratification of the Lisbon treaty by all other 26 EU states will be accomplished as quickly as possible. Following Britain's ratification last night, another seven countries have still to endorse the treaty.
Today is Waterloo Day. Do we know enough about it? Should we care?
English Democrats would argue we should care, because if we don't know or understand the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them in the future.
A war is not a particular point for celebration, but it is probably a useful opportunity for reflection and perhaps if we spent a bit more time reflecting on warfare and its devastating effects, we might be less inclined to get involved in other military adventures.
Here is information about the battle of Waterloo, enjoy!
The Battle of Waterloo, fought near the town of Waterloo (pronounced [watəʀˈloː]) in Belgium on Sunday 18 June1815,[5] was the decisive battle of the Waterloo Campaign, and Napoleon Bonaparte's last. Waterloo marked the end of the period known as the Hundred Days, which began in March 1815 after Napoleon's return from Elba, where he had been exiled after his defeats at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and the campaigns of 1814 in France. The defeat put a final end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French.
After Napoleon returned to power in 1815, many states which had previously resisted his rule formed the Seventh Coalition and began to mobilise armies to oppose him. The first two assembled close to the French north eastern border. They consisted of a Prussian army under the command of Gebhard von Blücher, and an Anglo-allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington. Napoleon chose to attack in the hope of destroying them before they, with other members of the Seventh Coalition, could join in a coordinated invasion of France. The campaign consisted of four major battles: Quatre Bras (16 June), Ligny (16 June), Waterloo (18 June), and Wavre (18 June – 19 June). According to the Duke of Wellington, the battle was "The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.[6]
It rained heavily overnight on 17 June, so Napoleon delayed giving battle until noon on 18 June to allow the ground to dry. Wellington's army, positioned across the Brussels road on the Mont St Jeanescarpment, withstood repeated attacks by the French, until in the evening when they counter-attacked and drove the French from the field. Simultaneously the Prussians arrived in force and broke through Napoleon's right flank. Finally, the French army left the battlefield in disorder, allowing Coalition forces to enter France and restore Louis XVIII to the French throne. Napoleon abdicated to the British and was exiled to Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.
The battlefield is in present-day Belgium, about eight miles (12 km) SSE of Brussels, and about a mile (2 km) from the town of Waterloo. The site of the battlefield is today dominated by a large mound of earth, the Lion's Hillock. As this mound used earth from the field itself, the original topography has not been preserved.
A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE STATES THE OBVIOUS MUCH TO THE DELIGHT OF THE
ENGLISH MOVEMENT WHO HAVE BEEN ARGUING THE POINT FOR 10 YEARS
NOW, FINALLY THE SCOTTISH RAJ GET THE MESSAGE - QUESTION IS DO THEY CARE?
"PERVERSE" Barnett Formula
Scotland's Treasury money is worked out from the Barnett Formula
The process which decides the level of cash Scotland gets from the Treasury is perverse and not efficient, a public spending expert has said.
Oxford University's Professor Iain McLean told MSPs the Barnett Formula was unsustainable in the long run.
His claim that Scotland was ready to look after its own taxes was welcomed by the SNP and Liberal Democrats.
The comments came as Holyrood's finance committee heard evidence from academic figures on the budget process.
Prof McLean, a public spending expert, is currently advising the Calman Commission review on devolution.
He told the committee inquiry: "I think you have excellently designed institutions for the budget process in an independent state, or a state with substantial fiscal autonomy.
Prof McLean's evidence points to one of devolution's fundamental flaws
Joe FitzPatrick SNP MSP
"Of course what we have is neither of those."
Prof McLean's submission to the inquiry stated: "Barnett is unsustainable in the long-run. It is neither efficient nor equitable."
He continued: "It gives perverse incentives to the devolved administrations - their block grant is a function of a number they cannot control.
"In turn, their decisions have consequences which the UK government cannot fully control."
Stating public spending was higher per head in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, Prof McLean, of Oxford's Nuffield College, said: "It probably derives not from greater need but from the more credible threat to the Union of the United Kingdom that they pose."
Labour MSP Elaine Murray said members of the public would never get interested as long as MSPs were forced to "shuffle the cards" dealt by Westminster.
Budget confusion
And after the committee meeting, Nationalist MSP, Joe FitzPatrick, said: "Prof McLean's evidence points to one of devolution's fundamental flaws - that we are spending money without direct responsibility for raising it."
Liberal Democrat finance spokesman, Liam McArthur, said the Barnett Formula provided stability during the early years of the Scottish Parliament, but added: "It is time to look again at how we fund our policy priorities."
The UK Government has said Scotland's share of public spending provided the same per capita spending increase as comparable government departments in England.
It added that Scotland also benefited "substantially" from the UK's continued strong economic growth and employment performance.
Edinburgh University professor, Irvine Lapsley, also told the committee there was "much to be proud" at the Scottish Parliament but Jo Armstrong, of the Centre of Public Policy for Regions, warned the budget process in Scotland was not fully understood.
Early indications are that the NO vote is likely to win by a rate of 60/40%.
Results gathered in Dublin are already showing that the NO vote is in the lead and is likely to triumph.
Full results will be out later today, but a 40% turnout often favours a negative vote.
It is clear that the people of Eire have spoken for the majority of Europe who have been denied a voice and the fact that the country who has gained most from EU membership sees fit to reject the Treaty is a significant kick in the teeth to the European Elite who (wrongly) believed that financial bribery of Eire would deliver their loyalty.
As the English have also found to their cost, the Irish consider what is in their interests first and foremost and that is certainly the approach the English should also pursue.
Eire have had their industries boosted and their livelihoods lifted by billions of pounds of largely English money syphoned away via the EU into Eire, but the Irish can also see the price for staying in the EU is far too high.
Majority voting, loss of sovereignty, loss of neutrality, loss of subsidies and control over virtually every aspect of their lives is not something they relish, nor should they.
It is now time that the rogue government of Gordon Brown were also forced to honour their commitment to provide a vote on this important constitutional matter.
Do we want our views represented by an EU President no one has voted for? Do we want our foreign policy dictated to us by a bunch of cowardly states who have failed to support us in Afghanistan? Do we want our views obscured by majority voting? Do we want our sovereignty to be cast to the winds? NO NO NO NO
England demands a vote on the Lisbon Treaty NOW!!!!!!!!!!
The BBC have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not doing a good job of covering devolved politics in the UK. They are not alone of course, hundreds of thousands have been telling them that for the last ten years, but have just been given the usual brush off which is part and parcel of the arrogance of that British institution.
Many a Scot has had a quick intake of breath with the prospect of having to pay £3,000pa for their children to go to university, catching the BBC announcing that this "new" national policy in fact only applies to the people of England (relax) only the idiots South of the border will have to cough up, the rest of the UK can continue to have it free. The BBC is either cynical or ignorant in keeping these facts from the listeners and viewers as it seeks to hide the scandalous mistreatment of the people of England when compared to other parts of the UK.
Should we be surprised at the BBC's ignorance? Afterall, politics is such a minority topic at the Beeb, competing with garden makeovers, talent shows and Dr Who revamps, means serious debates about trivial matters such as the future of England, availability of life saving drugs and falling education standards are simply a frustration to the intellects of the Beeb, who would prefer to hear it first hand from John Penaar or the twit Nick Robinson, both self styled political correspondents who impertinently assume they have an opinion worth hearing!
The BBC Trust, filled with QUANGOITES and Labour luvvies goes through the motions, but even they can't fool all the people all of the time. 10 years on the Beeb has been nailed for being inadequate on virtually every aspect of devolution coverage. Remiss to ignore English Culture, remiss to avoid English politics, erroneous in its reporting of "national" politics and incompetent in its understanding of devolution.
Will anything change? Has a report ever really made a difference? Well, we can all draw our own conclusions.
If you would like to see the report and read its conclusions please follow the link. However, it is highly likely that the Beeb will continue to misinform, misrepresent and confuse the issues, because, in the end it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and with its onerous Charter, political correctness and horror of free speech we can be confident absolutely nothing will change. Sadly, the BBC has to go and a major reason it must go is contained in the latest BBC Trust Report - it is unchangeable.
The Europhiles are holding their breath, will Eire cast the death blow to the Lisbon Treaty in today's referendum?
Could we find in the space of two days that the Northern Irish DUP steal our Civil Liberties in a disgusting pact with Labour only to find the South of Ireland free us from the nightmare that is the looming authoritarian superstate of the EU? What a pivotal and suprisingly powerful turnaround for the people of Ireland!
Knowing the disgraceful betrayal of civil liberties the DUP in Northern Ireland have perpetrated against freedom, can we now hope that the people of Southern Ireland will make a decisive blow against those who would continue to salami slice away our freedoms and ability to govern ourselves?
Today the people of the UK look to Southern Ireland to exercise their democratic right to REFUSE to pass across their national sovereignty. As a small country Eire stands to lose the most in terms of majority voting and influence. The Lisbon Treaty will ensure that small countries are whipped into line and their peoples' voices are muted. For Eire this is probably the last time they will ever have a decisive vote on anything. NOW is the time to make their vote count, NOW is the time to say NO to an undemocratic Europe, and NO to those politicians who deny their people the right to a referendum.
Eire, we hope today you will do the right thing and say NO to the Lisbon Treaty, by doing so you give the UK the possibility to fight Labour's refusal to honour their commitment to a Referendum and you force the slippery Conservatives to keep open THEIR promise to allow the nation a vote. Don't let the Tories off the hook, vote for Neutrality, Freedom and Democracy, VOTE NO in the Referendum.
It was quite a disgusting sight to witness, the 9 DUP MPs making the decisive votes to dispense with Habeas Corpus for political favours inevitably linked to money from the English Exchequer.
The Labour and Tory Parties use as their defence against proportional representation the fear that "unrepresentative" minorities can have a disproportionate influence over policy. Tell us, what is the difference between 9 DUP MPs holding sway over 50 Million English people, 5 million Scots and 3 Million Welsh? If that is not an abuse of our political system then we really do not know what is. Our dysfunctional Parliamentary system allows matters of Constitutional importance to be sealed on a single vote - don't tell the English that what we need is a written Constitution, with an authoritarian rogue government at the helm we are at the mercy of madmen.
The disgraceful abuse of power under Labour should confirm in the minds of the public that we are indeed being run by a rogue government, aided and abetted by gold digging hangers on festering in Northern Ireland. What weasle excuses will those discreditable DUP MPs give for their betrayal of our freedoms, how many pieces of silver have they sold us out for? England must have her own Parliament to be free of those who would abuse us. Gordon Brown is a disgrace to his office and those in the Labour party that support his abominable assault on our liberties deserve to be cast from Parliament.
We salute those principalled Labour MPs who withstood the pressure placed on them by the whips and voted on the side of justice fairness and equality. There is no demand and no need for 42 days, there are plenty of other ways terrorists could be held under lock and key without throwing out our civil liberties.
England will not forgive this betrayal. We have been kicked in the teeth by the Scots, had our freedoms stolen from us by the Irish, we now wait with bated breathe to see what treasonous behaviour the Welsh will exact given the opportunity.
Today is a dark historic day, the Tories will no doubt forget to retract this poisonous piece of legislation should they come to office and the English will rue the day they ever voted Labour into power. England now faces the ire of the civilised world with draconian custody legislation which is commonplace in some of the darkest recesses of the most despotic regimes on the planet. Thank you Labour, now we know what you mean by JUSTICE FAIRNESS EQUALITY.
We shouldn't be surprised, but it has emerged that over the last few years Labour has spent derisory amounts on celebrating England's National Day.
Andrew Rossindale MP one of the few patriotic English MPs in Parliament was shocked to learn that Margaret Hodge's Department spent just £116 on St George's Day this year! This is a scandal when compared to the amount of money that has been spent by public bodies allowing the celebration of minority celebrations up and down the country.
Further evidence (if it were needed) that the cultural life of the English is under attack. If it isn't alien cultures asserting their right to celebrate who and what they are, then the all pervasive British State operating out of Westminster seeks to stifle any expression of Englishness.
The Labour government should be ashamed of itself in its brazen attempts to subjugate Englishness by sheer neglect and indifference. It is clear, with the millions spent on promoting Welshness, Scottishness, Irishness that Labour's social engineering has been nothing more than a cynical programme to deculturalise the people of England and pour scorn on the wishes, sentiments and human rights of many millions of people who consider themselves to be English.
Labour must go and the Conservatives need to get real about the cultural needs of England and more Britishness is most certainly not the solution!
THE ENGLISH LOBBY APPEAL TO PARLIAMENT TO REJECT 42 DAYS
Dear Parliamentarian,
The Labour Party have less than 22% of the popular vote, they do not speak for the vast majority of the UK population and certainly not for the people of England.The vote to extend 42 Days detention on people who are “suspected” of involvement in terrorist activities is an unacceptable infringement of our English rights to Habeas Corpus and an unprecedented interference by politicians into the functioning of the judicial system.
Passing this Bill into law will make the UK an outcast in the civilized world and will betray the hard one freedoms of our people who gave their lives to keep England free from authoritarianism.
·MI5 have said they don’t need it
·Leading Police Constables have said it is not needed
·Past Attorney General’s reject the need for it
·The Home Secretary can’t even justify a case for it
Elected members have a duty to respect our ancient and hard won civil liberties and 42 days will break the trust between politicians and the People, it will be a grave day should this happen.
The English Lobby, part of the wider English movement ask that you think very carefully about the importance of Liberty to the English psyche and reject Brown’s plans to incarcerate innocent people for 42 days without charge.
If you pass this law we will be no better than a banana republic such as Zimbabwe and our moral authority to speak on matters of liberty across the world will vanish.
Please do the right thing and vote NO to 42 days.
Both the Commons and the Lords have received this request
10 years on the "education education education" mantra, uttered by Blair is sounding hollow and empty.
Billions having been spent on educational establishments that still leave nearly 650 schools unable to achieve a 30% attainment for their pupils to achieve A-C grades at GCSE. Or perhaps we should say a 70% failure rate?
Hundreds of thousands of children will have their futures blighted because the schools these children are attending are simply not up to the job.
Yes, it is right not to "blame" teachers for the state of society, but the children in these "failing schools" spend 7 hours a day 5 days a week and more than 10 years of their life at school, and if schools after this time cannot get more than 70% of their pupils to achieve not even an average C pass from their end of studies examinations there is something very very wrong with the system.
Many mourn the passing of grammar schools, a fantastic opportunity for many working class children to go on to a first class education, freed from the need to pay, and opportunities given on merit and merit alone, not limited by some childish preoccupation with limiting choice for those with ability. This system was seen as unpalatable to the Champagne Socialist like of Diane Abbot and Co, who castigated such schools as "elitest and exclusive", and advocated their closure. Incidentally Abbot and a good number of other good "socialists" simply sent their children to a private school as they couldn't bear to waste their educational futures in the state sector.
The decimation of the excellent grammar school system and replacement with mediocre "comprehensives", where children are treated as nothing more than statistics in the sausage machine mill of the education sector has been a typically disasterous move by the dogma obsessed Labourites.
State schools are now spending as much (or more) to educate children as the private sector, but the private sector has stupendously different results, typically the achievement rates of A-C grades are above 70% and regularly 90%+ as against figures of 25-60%.
Serious questions now have to be asked about comprehensive education. Does it have a future? If so, who should be condemned to it?
Everywhere we look standards are falling. The sciences are falling away replaced with "soft" subject such as the ubiquitous "media studies". Yet more children then ever leave school unable to spell and add up, despite the investment and despite the alleged "improvements" Labour would have us believe.
Shocking numbers of comprehensively educated children are also dropping out of university, often because they can't cope with the work, or never wanted to go to university in the first place, being pushed there by a Labour party that ignored the debt and pressures such children would face.
Prof McLean's evidence points to one of devolution's fundamental flaws 